Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Wallasey Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

West Cheshire Water Board Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — SARDINIA (MRS. DOROTHIE BODLEY).

Colonel DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the sufferings of Mrs. Dorothie Bodley, a British subject, during the time she was detained by the Italian authorities at Cagliari, Sardinia; whether he has received a full Report from the British Consul at Cagliari of this incident; whether any representations have been made by the Foreign Office to the Italian authorities; and if he is in a position to make a full statement on the subject?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): Yes, Sir. Mrs. Bodley has made to me a statement of her experiences in Sardinia, and her account is confirmed by a report which I have received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome who has been in communication with the British Consul at Cagliari. In the circumstances, I am instructing His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome to bring the facts of the case to the notice of the Italian Government with a view to inquiry being made into the incident.

Colonel DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the report that he has received from the Ambassador relating to this lady will be published?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think so.

Oral Answers to Questions — GEORGIA.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now had an opportunity of examining the papers relative to the allegations of Signor Nitti, late Prime Minister of Italy, to the effect that Italy was urged by the Entente Powers to occupy the territory of the Republic of Georgia; and whether he proposes to lay Papers on the subject before the House?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have seen in a book by Signor Nitti, kindly lent to me by the hon. Gentleman, the statement quoted by the hon. Member. As stated in my reply to him of the 20th instant, there seem to have been informal conversations on the subject, of which no record exists, between the representatives of the Italian Government at the Peace Conference and the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). The records available are not suitable for publication and would only give a partial and possibly misleading account of what passed.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Are we, then, to understand from the hon. Gentleman that the then Prime Minster, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) did definitely urge the Italian Government to invade and seize the territory of the Republic of Georgia at that time?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think I can really go beyond what I have already said in the answer. It was a question whether, as the British troops were being withdrawn from that district, the Italian troops should take their place or not.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it the case that Signor Nitti resisted the urgings of the then Prime Minister, declaring them to be a gross violation of all international law, and that Signor Nitti himself secured the abandonment of the enterprise?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There is no doubt that the suggestion made did fall through at that time.

Mr. PONSONBY: Is not the absence of any record of these negotiations due to the fact that in those days foreign affairs were all conducted at 10, Downing Street, without the knowledge of the Foreign Office?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is there also an absence of any record of the views which the leaders of the Socialist party used to hold about the independence of Georgia which they have now given up?

Mr. RILEY: Are we then to take it from what the hon. Gentleman has said that the suggestion made was that Georgia should be seized?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand the suggestion that was made was that the British troops that were in occupation of the Caucasus at that time should be replaced by Italian troops.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as far as we are concerned, we have always declared the right of Georgia to govern herself in her own way?

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA (BRITISH PRIVILEGES).

Miss WILKINSON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communication has been received from the Government of Persia proposing the termination of the capitulatory rights and privileges at present enjoyed by British and certain other foreign residents at Persia; whether he will inform the House of the terms of any such communication; and whether he will say what reply His Majesty's Government has made or proposes to make?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is in the affirmative. The gist of the Persian announcement has already appeared in the Press, and I have nothing to add to it at the present time. With regard to the third part of the question, His Majesty's Government have not yet returned a reply to the Persian Government, and it is not customary to state in advance the substance of a note to a foreign Power.

Miss WILKINSON: What is the reason for the communication that has been received from the Persian Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Persian Government, I understand, wish to terminate the capitulatory privileges enjoyed by us.

Miss WILKINSON: It is, of course, obvious that they wish to terminate them, but I want to ask the hon. Gentleman why they wish to terminate them?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it that the suggestion of the Persian Government will receive the very favourable consideration of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The proposals of the Persian Government are receiving consideration.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what privilegs, capitulations, and immunities are enjoyed by British subjects in Persia; whether these are enjoyed by nationals of other European countries; and which of these privileges is the Persian Government seeking to terminate?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The rights which are enjoyed by British subjects in Persia, and which the Persian Government desire to terminate, may be summarised as the privilege of having all cases, civil or criminal, in a which they are defendants, tried by extra-territorial jurisdiction, conferred by Order in Council upon the British Consular Court. This right is derived from Article 9 of the Anglo-Persian Treaty of the 4th of March, 1857, wherby most-favoured-nation treatment is guaranteed to British subjects. French citizens and Spanish subjects also enjoy extra-territorial jurisdiction in virtue of the express provisions of their respective treaties with Persia, which are in perpetuity. Various other countries also possessed similar rights guaranteed by their several treaties, but each of these instruments contained a denunciatory clause.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether, in view of the good government that has been established in Persia and the order that prevails there, we are viewing this matter favourably?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have already stated that the whole of this matter is now engaging the careful consideration of the Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the Under-Secretary see that if we give up these capitulations in Turkey we can hardly refuse the same concession in Persia?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not the fact that one-third of the entire revenue of Persia is raised by British enterprise?

Mr. RILEY: Has there been any interchange of views on this matter between His Majesty's Government, the Italian Government and the French Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We are in consultation with the French Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

OCCUPIED TERRITORY.

Mr. HARRIS: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to give any date for the termination of the occupation by the Allies of the occupied German territory; and whether the matter has been, or is being, discussed at Geneva?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As regards the first part of the question, the answer is in the negative. As regards the second part, I would ask the hon. Member to put down his question when my right hon. Friend has returned. I understand my right hon. Friend is returning on Saturday.

FORTIFICATIONS, EAST PRUSSIA.

Mr. HARRIS: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the fortifications in East Prussia have been demolished to the satisfaction of the Military Control Commission?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The demolition of the fortifications in Eastern Prussia has recently been the subject of discussion with the German Government at Geneva, and I would suggest that the hon. Member should put down his question when my right hon. Friend has returned.
I would point out incidentally that the Military Commission of Control was withdrawn from Germany at the end of January last and that only a few experts remain in Berlin attached to their respective Embassies.

Mr. HARRIS: With regard to both these questions, would Monday be a convenient date, or would it be more convenient to postpone them until next Wednesday?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think my right hon. Friend will be answering questions on Monday.

RUSSIAN ARMS AND AMMUNITION (IMPORTS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the import by Germany from Soviet Russia of poison gas bombs, which it has now been found by the German Courts has been taking place over a considerable period of time, constitutes a breach of the Treaty of Versailles, any assurance has been given by the German Government that there shall be no repetition of this?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am given to understand that the import into Germany, in contravention of Article 170 of the Treaty of Versailles, of arms and ammunition from Russia has now ceased and all transactions in connection with such import have been liquidated. Should any further infractions of the Treaty in this particular respect be brought to light in the future it will, of course, be possible for the question to be brought to the notice of the Council of the League of Nations under Article 213 of the Treaty of Versailles.

Sir F. HALL: Considering that the Article has been broken, does not my hon. Friend think that it is right and advisable to approach the German Government and ask for the assurances which I refer to in the last part of the question?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that these transactions took place between subordinate departments of each of the Governments. They were not official transactions between Governments. The German Government have made it quite clear since that they disapproved of these transactions and they have stopped them.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Has the Foreign Office any information as to the wholesale manufacture of poison gas in Russia at the present time?

Colonel GRETTON: Can the Under-Secretary say how many bombs have been imported into Germany in infringement of the Treaty?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I must have notice of that question.

Miss LAWRENCE: Is this the gas referred to as Dyer Gas?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: May I ask whether the bombs in question have been destroyed?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be put down.

PASSPORTS AND VISAS (UNITED STATES).

Mr. HANNON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposals have been received from the Government of the United States for the abolition or reduction of the charges for visas on passports between the United States and this country; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No further proposals have been received from the United States Government since those of 1925, which are fully dealt with in Command Paper 2746 of 1926.

Mr. HANNON: Has not the time arrived to approach the United States, so that these excessive charges on visas can be done away with altogether.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not a fact that these visas act as a form of Imperial Preference by inducing our people to go to Canada instead of to the United States?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The last time we attempted to deal with this question unfortunately only a very one-sided bargain was proposed by the United States, that we should waive the whole of our visas and that they should merely reduce the fees.

Sir W. DAVISON: Stick to your guns.

CHINA (SITUATION).

Colonel DAY: 7.
asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement to the House on the present position in China; and whether there has been any recent alteration in China of the military or naval forces belonging to Great Britain?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any marked change in the military and political situation in China since he last described the situation to the House; and whether any negotiations of any kind are in progress with the Chinese authorities at Nanking or Hankow as to the position of our nationals and their properties and trade in the areas controlled by those Governments?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The military situation in China remains substantially as stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day) on the 13th of June last. It is understood that negotiations between the various military leaders are proceeding, which appear to have resulted in an agreement between Generals Chiang Kai-shek and Feng Yu-hsiang. General Chiang Kai-shek with his Nationalist armies is invading Shantung Province. General Feng in Honan Province is making no forward movement at present.
On the 18th of June Chang Tso-lin was installed as Commander-in-Chief for the Army and Navy, and a new Cabinet was formed in Peking under the premiership of Pan Fu.
A local revolution took place in Yunnan on the 19th of June, when the control of the Government was wrested from a moderate Nationalist leader by one of a less moderate type.
On the 23rd of June a Chinese raiding party, consisting of an officer and 50 soldiers, boarded a hulk at Chinkiang belonging to a British shipping company with the object of searching a British river steamer. A landing party from His Majesty's Ship "Verity" was sent, and found the officer and 10 soldiers still on board; these were driven off with truncheons. The officer in charge of the raiding party has since been reprimanded by the local Chinese authorities.
In addition to the battalion transferred to Tientsin, one battalion has been sent to Wei-hai-wei for the defence of the convalescent depot established there for sick soldiers from Shanghai. The only naval change is that His Majesty's Ship "Enterprise" has proceeded from the China Station to the East Indies Station and His Majesty's Ship "Emerald" will do so shortly.
No negotiations are in progress with the Chinese authorities at Nanking or Hankow, but His Majesty's Consular Officers continue to deal with them regarding specific cases involving British interests as they arise.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there have been any casualties since the last statement he made amongst our forces in China?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Not that I know of.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the situation in Shanghai is still considered sufficiently dangerous to necessitate the retention of those armed forces?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If we did not think that the situation necessitated it, we should not retain our forces there.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are they being retained there because of the present danger, or merely because of the expense of bringing them back?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: During a period of civil war there must always be danger.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will they remain there for ever?

Mr. THURTLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether his Department has any information as to the present relations existing between Hankow and Nanking—between Chiang Kai-shek and the Hankow Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: All I can say is, that we believe that Chiang Kai-shek regards the Communist element in Hankow with very little favour.

Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask, for about the tenth time, if the hon. Gentleman can state whether anyone outside is
making an effort to bring this unfortunate quarrel between the two sections in China to an end?

Mr. WALLHEAD: May I ask whether His Majesty's Government attributes the more recent developments between these various armies in Northern China to machinations from Moscow?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members should put those questions down on the Paper.

CONSTANTINOPLE LOAN, 1909.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the position of the bondholders of the Constantinople Loan, 1909, which has as a security the Galata bridge tolls?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Since the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 22nd of February last, I have not received any information on the subject beyond what has appeared in the Press.

ARMS (PRIVATE MANUFACTURE).

Mr. DALTON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information regarding the draft texts, prepared in view of a Convention on the supervision of the private manufacture of arms and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations, by the special Commission appointed for this purpose?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The draft texts which will come before the Conference were issued to the representatives of the Press at Geneva during the recent meeting of the Council. They will in due course be published in the League of Nations Official Journal, which can be purchased in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CANTEENS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received a request from the Naval Canteen Service regarding the placing of all canteens under the management of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): A resolution to this effect which was passed at the last Headquarters Naval Canteen Committee has been communicated to the Admiralty and is receiving consideration.

OIL DISCHARGE.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is to be understood, since the Admiralty have a special barge equipped with oil-separating plant at Portsmouth, that this barge is universally used and that no vessel in that area now discharges oil into the sea within a radius of 50 miles?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The oil separating barge at Portsmouth is used on every possible occasion. The answer to the second part of the question, so far as His Majesty's Ships and Naval Auxiliaries are concerned, is in the affirmative.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. and gallant Member say what is done with the oil when the barge is not used? Is it discharged into the sea?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have already referred the hon. Member to an answer in which it is stated that it is not discharged into the Harbour. It is taken out into the open sea in the way I told him the other day.

TUG MASTERS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 15.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what action it is proposed to take as a result of the representations made by the Association of First-class Masters of His Majesty's Tugs to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty and representatives of the Treasury, on 11th August, 1926, regarding increased remuneration and improved conditions of status and service for members of the association?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have nothing to add to my reply of the 9th May (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 45).

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

DURHAM COUNTY.

Mr. SPOOR: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the amount of
distress in the district of Bishop Auckland, county Durham; whether he is aware that numbers of collieries are closing down and that men are being removed from the unemployment register without adequate reason and being compelled to apply to the board of guardians for relief; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made with a view to having this district regarded as a necessitous area?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): As stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines on Thursday last, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) regarding milling areas generally, His Majesty's Government are aware of the present conditions in the mining industry, and are giving the matter their special consideration. I am unable to agree with the allegation that men are being removed from the register without adequate reason.

Mr. SPOOR: Is the hon. Member aware that large numbers of men who are thrown out of work as a result of these conditions are men with an experience of 30 and 40 years or more in mining, and that there is not the slightest doubt of their being reinstated under present conditions. To talk of alternative employment for such men is altogether absurd, if not really a fraud.

BRISTOL.

Mr. W. BAKER: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that between 5,000 and 6,000 persons in the city of Bristol are in receipt of unemployment benefit each week and that 900 persons are signing weekly without the receipt of benefit; whether he is aware that for the week ending 25th May, 2,107 men, 2,125 women and 4,647 children, a total of 8,879 men, women and children were in receipt of relief from the guardians, the total cost for the week being £2,536 18s. 10d.; and whether, having regard to the position in the city of Bristol created by the long continued period of unemployment, he will consider additional relief schemes?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am aware that the number of persons in receipt of unemployment benefit and relief from the guardians is substantially as stated in
the question. Schemes of work for the relief of persons unemployed are initiated by local authorities who are, I think, generally aware that schemes which satisfy the conditions for a grant from State funds should be submitted to the Unemployment Grants Committee.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not the case that in consequence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer "pinching" £12,000,000 out of the Road Fund, local authorities are prevented from carrying out much useful work?

TRADE UNIONS (STATISTICS).

Mr. ROSE: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that no statistics of trades unions have been issued by the Registrar-General dealing with developments later than 1924; if he can explain the delay; and will he take measures to expedite the publication of particulars in connection with the years 1925 and 1926?

Mr. BETTERTON: A statistical summary showing the operations of registered trade unions for the year 1925 was issued by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies in January, 1927. A similar summary for 1926 will be published towards the end of this year. The summaries are published within five months or less of the receipt of the returns containing the particulars. The returns have to be examined and abstracted before the totals can be arrived at, and there is no avoidable delay in their publication. Part 4 of the Report of the Chief Registrar, containing details as to the operations of trade unions is necessarily published sometime after the summary. That for the year 1926, dealing with the figures for 1925, should be ready about the end of October next.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

MOORING MASTS, SOUTH AFRICA.

Colonel DAY: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Government of the Union of South Africa have placed with the Air Ministry a contract for material for the erection of a standard mooring mast in South Africa for the use of the new Empire airships; what is the total cost of such material; and will the whole cost of this be defrayed by the South African Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As regards the first two parts of the question, the Government of the Union of South Africa have requested the Air Ministry to place on their behalf a contract for a mooring mast base in that country, but the details have not yet been settled. The actual expense that will be involved cannot therefore be definitely stated. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Colonel DAY: Can the Under-Secretary say whether the Air Ministry has been requested by any other Government to provide mooring masts?

Sir P. SASSOON: That does not arise out of this question, but I believe the Government of Canada have asked for mooring masts.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can my hon. Friend say whether these mooring masts are now being made with lifts? Is he aware that hon. Members who went to Pulham about a year and a-half ago found that the climb of a hundred and forty foot vertical ladder rather a bit of a strain?

AUXILIARY AIR FORCE (FLYING OFFICERS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the age limits for qualified pilots joining the Auxiliary Air Force

Sir P. SASSOON: The minimum age limit for appointment to a commission in the Auxiliary Air Force for flying duties is 18 years. The maximum age limits for appointment are as follow:


Pilot or Flying Officer
…
25 years.


Flight Lieutenant
…
30 years.


Squadron Leader
…
35 years.


Wing Commander
…
40 years.


The Air Council have discretionary power to give special consideration to the application of any candidate who is over the age limit but who is otherwise suitable.

DISPLAY, HENDON.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he can furnish particulars of the forthcoming air display at Hendon?

Sir P. SASSOON: The display, as in previous years, will be fully representative of the different aspects of the work of the Royal Air Force, and will
afford the public an opportunity of witnessing the progress made in both civil and military aeronautics. Particulars of the more important events have appeared in the Press and in numerous advertisements and posters.

Miss WILKINSON: Does the Under-Secretary think that displays like the bombing of villages, which I understand is part of this display, are suitable for young children to witness?

Mr. MONTAGUE: May I ask whether the Air Ministry will consider importing a few real barbarians for this display?

Colonel GRETTON: Can the Under-Secretary say whether this display will entail any cost on the Exchequer?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, certainly not.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask, if my question is not out of order, whether I am not entitled to an answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question is more appropriate to the next question on the Paper.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he can give the names of the education authorities and other bodies which have been invited to send children to witness the air display at Hendon; what has been the response; and how many children are likely to attend?

Sir P. SASSOON: As regard the first part of the question, 73 invitations to the Royal Air Force display rehearsal on 1st July have been issued to education committees in the Metropolitan area and the Home Counties. Invitations have also been issued to Boy Scouts, Girl Guides and Church Lads' Brigades. I do not think that a list of the committees and bodies to whom the invitations have been sent would serve any useful purpose. As regards the remaining parts of the question, 50 invitations have been accepted up to the present, but I cannot give an estimate of the number of children who are likely to attend.

Miss WILKINSON: Can I ask now the question that I asked previously, namely, whether the Under-Secretary considers that these displays are suitable for young children to witness?

Sir P. SASSOON: Certainly.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the hon. Baronet aware that all these children in their schools are taught the Sermon on the Mount? Does he not think that there is some contradiction between the doctrine of the Sermon on the Mount and this particular display at Hendon?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a great deal better for them to witness British pluck in the air than to pay a visit to Soviet Russia?

Mr. PONSONBY: Will the hon. Baronet state whether the display will include a demonstration of the effects of poison gas?

Viscountess ASTOR: The display is not only for military purposes, surely? Is it not true that aviation may become a great commercial asset to this country, and that this display is not of value only for war purposes?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

LAND REGISTRY (MESSENGERS).

Mr. KELLY: 24.
asked the Attorney-General whether, seeing that Award A81 of the Civil Service Arbitration Board stipulated that the rates of pay and conditions therein laid down applied to all messengers in all London offices, he will see that these terms are granted to the messengers employed at His Majesty's Land Registry as from the date of the Award A81; whether he is aware that the reorganisation scheme for messengers at His Majesty's Land Registry, which was introduced in 1923, was never discussed by the Departmental Whitley Council nor with the representatives of the society to which the men belong; and whether, in these circumstances, he will see that the request for the full application of Award A81 is granted?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The men employed in His Majesty's Land Registry were not members of the classes to which Award A81 applied, their conditions of service and appointment and the method of their recruitment being different from those of the messengers in London offices referred to in the hon. Member's question. Full details of the reorganisation scheme of 1923 were explained to the representatives of the society to which the men belonged, and accepted by them,
except on one point, which is not now material. In these circumstances the request cannot be granted.

Mr. KELLY: Was the notification which was made to a particular society made within recent months?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not know what the date is, but I will ascertain for the hon. Gentleman.

OFFICE OF WORKS (SIR FRANK BAINES).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he proposes to reduce the staff of his Department, in View of the fact that it was thought possible for one of his senior officials to accept an outside contract while employed on full-time work in his Department?

Captain HACKING: (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): It has been decided to abolish the post of Director of Works on the retirement of Sir F. Baines from the service on or about the 1st September next.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the conditions under which Sir Frank Baines was employed in the Government service permitted him to enter into a contract for service with a private company without the consent of the First Commissioner?

Captain HACKING: The conditions under which architects and other professional officers in the Department are allowed to accept commissions in their professional capacity from individual persons or private firms were given in detail in my reply to the hon. Member's question on the 26th May. The whole question for the future is under consideration.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of the pension to be paid to Sir Frank Baines upon his retirement from the Government service on 1st September?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I
am not yet in a position to give this information, as the Treasury are still awaiting the detailed particulars necessary for the determination of the amount to be awarded under the provisions of Section 7 of the Superannuation Act, 1859.

Mr. HARDIE: Can any civil servant, while in the employ of the Government, undertake any work under any form of contract?

Mr. McNEILL: I could not answer that question in such general terms without notice.

Mr. MORRISON: In view of the fact that this civil servant has been retired compulsorily because he was unable to get out of a contract that he had made with a private company, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is entitled to the same rate of superannuation as he would have received if he had served his term in the ordinary way?

Mr. McNEILL: His superannuation will be on a different basis altogether, and, as I have already told the hon. Member, I cannot yet state what the amount will be.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it a fact that this civil servant, while in the employ of the Government, was taking contract work from private firms outside? Is that the case or is it not?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: is it not also a fact that he did a good day's work for the Department?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question about the particular case should be addressed to the Office of Works. A question was put on that matter two or three days ago.

SALARIES.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 37.
(for Mr. E. BROWN) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what are the percentages of civil servants earning less than £3 a week, £3 to £3 10s., £3 10s. to £4, £4 to £5, etc., up to £500 a year?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown) to the answer I gave to an identical question put by him on the 23rd June.

KING'S ROLL.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 38.
(for Mr. E. BROWN) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many Government
Departments and Government industrial establishments, respectively, are on the King's Roll?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown) to the answer which I gave to him on the 5th May last.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether all local authorities are now on the King's Roll?

Mr. W. THORNE: Is Kensington?

Sir W. DAVISON: Yes.

CONTINENTAL MEAT (EMBARGO).

Mr. W. THORNE: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the fact that Sweden is clear of foot-and-mouth disease; that the Netherlands reported last month only three cases in total in place of thousands reported this time last year; that Friesland has been clear for some period now; and whether he intends raising the embargo, particularly for Dutch meat?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I am aware that the incidence of foot-and-mouth disease has diminished in Western Europe during the past few months, but in May there were five outbreaks in Sweden and 26 in the Netherlands, four of which occurred in the Province of Friesland. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the cases in Western European countries during the present year. In view of the grave risk of the disease spreading between contiguous countries with extensive land boundaries, I cannot contemplate a withdrawal of the embargo on Continental meat until I am satisfied that all the Western European countries are comparatively free from foot-and-mouth disease for a period long enough to ensure that the disease is under effective control.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in consequence of this embargo on foreign meat, the Government are reducing the real wages in this country of about 18,000,000 wage-earners?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think it can be shown that there has been any appreciable rise in the price of meat throughout the country. It is also very important
to realise that we have saved a great deal of money to the State by stamping out foot-and-mouth disease in this country.

Mr. THORNE: The Minister must be aware that in consequence of the embargo, the Government have raised the price of meat from a halfpenny to a penny per pound.

Following is the statement:

The following statement shows the number of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the countries mentioned during 1927:





Total—January to May, 1927.


Norway
…
…
4


Sweden
…
…
156


Denmark
…
…
1,692


Germany
…
…
7,036


Netherlands
…
…
596


Belgium
…
…
587


France
…
…
2,392


Poland
…
…
8,935

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 29.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that Great Britain possesses but 31 telephones per 1,000 inhabitants as compared with Australia's 68, New Zealand's 94, and Canada's 130, he is assured that everything possible is being done to increase the telephone service in this country by every available means?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I am satisfied that the steps taken by the Post Office to extend and develop the telephone service of Great Britain are designed to secure the best results and that no effort is spared in the pursuance of this object.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who is a good business man, whether any big commercial concern would be unable to make a statement as to the amount spent per annum in publicity and canvassing? That is admittedly the case with the Post Office.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not think that is so. It is impossible to deal with this matter by means of question and answer. I have already told my hon. Friend that the Contracts Branch is a separate Branch, and I am perfectly prepared to give the figures for that Branch.

Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that many people who have signed contracts for telephones even now cannot get them fitted up speedily?

Viscountess ASTOR: Would it not be better for the Government to advertise increased telephone facilities instead of drink in Post Office publications?

FRANCE (COAL IMPORTS).

Sir F. WISE: 30.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the imports of coal into France from Britain, Germany, and the United States from 1st January to as convenient a date as possible for the years 1914 and 1927, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): With my hon. Friend's permission, a table will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving the information he asks for.

Following is the table:


Country whence Imported.
January to April.


1914.
1927



Tons.
Tons.


Great Britain
4,141,483
3,081,205


Germany
1,362,481
†2,909,715


United States of America
*
451,091


*Not recorded: the total imports from the United States of America during 1914 only amounted to 29,962 tons.


†Includes deliveries from Germany on account of Reparations amounting to 2,014,759 tons.

In comparing these figures, the following differences in the scope of the French statistics should be borne in mind:

(1) Alsace Lorraine is included in the France of 1927 but not in that of 1914, and the Saar Territory is now treated for the purposes of the trade records as part of France. Thus, the French returns of imports now include imports into Alsace-Lorraine from Germany, and exclude imports from the Saar Basin.

(2) Foreign coal used in French ports for bunkering purposes on French ships in the foreign trade was excluded from the record of imports in 1914, but is now
included in that record. The total amount of these bunkers in January-April, 1914, was 399,718 tons.

GIRL'S DEATH, INVERGOWNE.

Mr. JOHNSTON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a girl was found drowned at Invergowne on 12th June, her body kept in an outhouse for a week, and then buried unidentified and without being photographed; and whether he is satisfied that all proper and possible steps have been taken by the authorities?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): Inquiries about the case referred to in the question are in progress, but my information is not yet complete. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his question next week.

SOLICITATION LAWS.

Viscountess ASTOR: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the promised Committee of Inquiry on the Solicitation Laws has yet been appointed; and, if not, if he can now say when it will be appointed, and what will be the terms of reference?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): It is proposed that the Terms of Reference of this Committee shall be to inquire into the law and practice regarding offences against the criminal law in connection with prostitution and solicitation for immoral purposes in streets and public places, and other similar offences against decency and good order, and to report what changes (if any) are in their opinion desirable. My right hon. Friend hopes to complete at an early date the selection of members to serve on this Committee.

RUSSIANS (DEPARTURE).

Sir F. HALL: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether the member of the Soviet Mission in London who was warned to leave this country but had not done so recently, has yet left and, if not, what is the name and record of this person; and what steps are being taken to expedite his departure?

Captain HACKING: Yes, Sir. This individual left on the 22nd instant. When my right hon. Friend made his statement on 23rd instant the previous day's reports had not come in.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: 35.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of persons assessable to Income Tax and the number assessable to Super-tax for the year ending 31st March, 1927, or the latest date available?

Mr. R. McNEILL: My hon. Friend will find the latest estimates of the numbers of taxpayers in Tables 53 and 67 of the 69th Annual Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION (RATIO).

Sir J. MARRIOTT: 36.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the ratio between direct and indirect taxation for each of the years ending 31st March, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927?

Mr. McNEILL: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate these figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

The ratio between the yield of direct taxation, including Excess Profits Duty and indirect taxation was:



Direct.
Indirect.


Year to 31st March,




1919
79.5*
20.5


1920
72.0*
28.0


1021
68.16*
31.84


1922
62.71
37.29


1923
64.42
35.58


1924
63.46
36.54


1925
66.93
33.07


1926
65.99
34.01


1927
64.43
35.57


The pre-War figure was
57.5
42.5


*Includes very large payments for Excess Profits Duty.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

Major BRAITHWAITE: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what sums of money have been used by the Empire Marketing Board to advertise and sell the home-grown products of the British farmer?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): No special allocation of the sums devoted by the Empire Marketing Board to advertising is made between the different parts of the Empire, but the policy of the Board's advertising is to encourage the public to ask first for the produce of their own country and next for the produce of the oversea parts of the Empire.

Major BRAITHWAITE: May I ask whether, in the depressing conditions of agriculture at the present time, some of this money could not usefully be allocated to helping our own farmers?

Mr. AMERY: This is money given in pursuance of a pledge, specifically in lieu of certain preferences which would have benefited the Dominions, but, by agreement with the other Governments of the Empire, the money is largely used for the help of agriculture.

Mr. HARDIE: Has it come under the view of the Government that owing to the lack of transport and other conditions obtaining in the North of Scotland, practically the whole of the produce there is being lost?

FEDERATED MALAY STATES (WOMEN AND GIRLS).

Viscountess ASTOR: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the Government has approved an amendment to the Federated Malay States Women and Girls Protection Enactment, whereby a prostitute suspected of being venereally diseased may be compulsorily examined, he will explain the reason for authorising this amendment, which appears to be inconsistent with the general principles laid down in the 1925 Report of the Advisory Committee to the Colonial Office on Singapore; and whether he will call this Committee together again to consider this amendment, and others of a like character, and report upon them?

Mr. AMERY: The object of the amendment is to prevent brothel-keepers from evading the provisions of the law which prohibits their permitting a woman suffering from contagious disease to remain in the brothel. There was previously no power to order the medical examination of a prostitute. Thus the object of the law has been defeated by
brothel-keepers instigating prostitutes to object to medical examination. There is no question of any general compulsory and periodical examination. The amendment has received my approval, and I do not consider it necessary to call the former Committee together again to consider it.

BRITISH GUIANA.

Mr. AMMON: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the statement containing the comments of the financial representative of the Combined Court, British Guiana, upon the Report of the Parliamentary Commissioners who visited British Guiana last winter will be presented to Parliament, so that Members may have an opportunity of considering it in connection with the Report of the Commissioners?

Mr. AMERY: I have not yet received the statement of the views of the elective section of the Combined Court, which I understand is on its way. The question of its presentation to Parliament, together with any other papers on the subject, will be considered when it has been received.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS ASSEMBLY (BRITISH DELEGATION).

Mr. BRIANT: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of including a woman as a fully accredited delegate in the Government's delegation to the Assembly of the League of Nations next September at Geneva?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: A woman will be included in the British Delegation to the next Assembly, which will be composed as follows:

Delegates:

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Sir Cecil Hurst, Legal Adviser to the Foreign Office.

Substitute Delegates:

The Earl of Onslow, Under-Secretary of State for War.
Sir Edward Hilton Young, M.P.
Major Walter Elliot, Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
Dame Edith Lyttelton.

The substitute delegates receive credentials in the same form as the delegates, and, in practice, their functions differ hardly at all.

Miss WILKINSON: Is it not possible to include a woman as a fully accredited delegate, since the right hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that a substitute delegate at Geneva has not the same status as a fully accredited delegate would have?

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think the hon. Ladies are under a misapprehension. Substitute delegates are fully accredited, and, if one of the delegates is absent, a substitute delegate takes the absent delegate's place. They have exactly the same standing.

Miss WILKINSON: Is it not the case, on the hon. Gentleman's own statement, that while the fully accredited delegates attend and take their part in the proceedings, a substitute delegate is only able to take a full share in the deliberations if a fully accredited delegate is absent? How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his own statement with his reply?

Mr. THURTLE: Will the Government see that all delegates sent to represent this country at Geneva are the best delegates possible, irrespective of sex?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think the list which I have read out shows that they are. The substitute delegates take a full part in the deliberations. They take their full share. We made a similar arrangement last year, and it was regarded with full satisfaction by all parties concerned.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that other countries, Germany for instance, send a woman as a fully-accredited delegate, and not as a substitute?

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Mr. BRIANT: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he will make provision for the inclusion of women in the Upper House in any proposals to be submitted to the Houses of Parliament?

Mr. LANSBURY: 46 and 48.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether it is intended that women shall be eligible to serve as elected Members of the House of Lords;
(2) whether, in connection with the scheme for the reform of the House of Lords, any decision has been arrived at with regard to the payment, of salaries to elected members?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): It is premature to answer these Questions of details, but no doubt, an opportunity will soon arise to discuss them in Debate.

Mr. CLYNES: Are we to take that answer as meaning that the Government have no statement to make in this House on the question of House of Lords reform until the Debate has been begun in this House?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think, on the whole, that would be a fairly safe conclusion to draw.

Mr. BRIANT: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the inclusion of women as only a detail of the scheme; and, considering that the number of women voters at the next Election promises to be larger than the number of men voters, would it not be wise and just if women were included in the Upper Chamber?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the answer to that question is fully conveyed in the answer which I have already given.

Sir F. HALL: Would it not solve all these difficulties if the Government were to leave alone this question of extending the franchise to women of 21?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the Government have abandoned these proposals for the present?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I have not heard of anything that could justify me in making a statement of that kind.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say whether the author of Question 48 on the Paper is looking ahead?

TEACHERS' SALARIES, COVENTRY.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 27.
(for Mr. E. BROWN) asked the President of the
Board of Education whether he is aware that teachers serving under the Coventry Education Authority are not receiving salary increments in accordance with paragraph 3 (a) (11) of the Third Report of the Joint Standing Committee and the Board's Regulations thereon; and whether, seeing that such teachers are entitled to either one increment at the conclusion of two years' service or seven-twelfths at the commencement of the financial year after serving one year and seven months, he will take the necessary steps to secure that the Coventry Education Authority adjust the increments in accordance with the standard scales and the Board's Regulations thereon?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): My right hon. Friend has received no representations on this matter, and as the Burnham Report provides machinery for its interpretation he sees no present ground for intervention on his part.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

NIGEL CLAUDIAN DALZIEL COLMAN, esquire, for the Borough of Lambeth (Brixton Division).

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Amendments to—

Yorkshire Electric Power Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS reported, That, after conferring with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Bills introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, should be first considered, they had determined that the following Bill should originate in the House of Lords, namely:
Dundee Corporation (Substituted Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

BILLS REPORTED.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed];

Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Maidstone Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Mexborough and Swinton Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to the printed.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Southend-on-Sea Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Rotherham Corporation (Trollyey Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Bognor Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords], Maidstone Water Bill [Lords],

Littlehampton Harbour and Arun Drainage Outfall Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

St. Catharine's College,Cambridge (Canonship of Norwich) Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had
appointed Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Wild Birds' Protection Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTE ES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Brigadier-General Warner; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Alfred Hopkinson.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1927.

CLASS V.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £12,943,593, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the suns necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in connection with Public Health Services, Grants-in-Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and certain Special Services."—[Note: £6,500,000 has been voted on account."]

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): Last year, in presenting the Estimates for the Ministry of Health to the Committee, I had to account for an increase of £40,000 over the Estimate for the preceding 12 months. This year there is a further increase of a little more than £1,105,000, but I do not imagine that on that account I shall be accused of extravagance, because the increases are really due to causes which operate automatically and are, moreover, brought about by policies which have been approved in all quarters of the House. Some £960,000 is accounted for by an increase in the number of houses upon which subsidy is paid; there is a further increase of £171,000 in the grant-in-aid for health purposes, and there is still another £91,000 increase in the cost of administration, which is, of course, due to the additional staff required for the purposes of the Contributory Pensions Act. I do not imagine that any of those figures will be challenged, and, therefore, I do not think it is necessary for me to detain the Committee by going into any special details in connection with them, but, of
course, if there are questions upon which any hon. Member desires further information, I hope to be able to supply him with what he desires in the course of the Debate. I think perhaps it would be of greater interest to the Committee if I were to pick out one or two of the salient features of the activities of my Department in order to give the Committee some idea of the field over which we range and the scope of our activities.
Coming now to the question of housing, it will be seen that the amount provided, which is £9,340,000, is nearly half of the total Estimate, amounting approximately to £19,500,000, and I think the Committee will like to know what we are getting for the expenditure of so large a sum of money. In order to give a comparison, I would mention that in the five years preceding the War the average number of houses built in this country was about 61,000. Taking the last three years—in each case the 12 months ended 31st March—the number built in 1925 was 137,000; in 1926 it rose to 173,000; and in 1927 to 217,000. That is really an astonishing, a prodigious effort on the part of this country, which I do not think can be paralleled anywhere else in the world, and although one does not wish to claim more credit than is due to the Government, at any rate I think we are entitled to say that the conditions which have been provided by the Government have acted as the most efficient stimulus to the building industry that could be conceived. The number which we thus find added to the common pool, looked at from that point of view, is so great that, as it proceeds, there cannot be any doubt that its effects will be felt right through every class of the population, and I feel confident myself that we are approaching the time when we may hope to see some much more active progress made with the improvement of the conditions in the slums than has been possible during all these years, when it was found difficult to deal with them, first, because of the scarcity of labour and materials, and also because of the fact that there was nowhere for people to go who might be displaced from the houses in which they were living.
But there is another aspect of the housing question which is not so satisfactory. I am, myself, very much concerned about
the cost of these new houses, which appears to me to be far too high. I think the problem before us at the moment is to see how we are going to get that cost reduced, and there are two ways in which it may be reduced. One of them concerns the size of the house. There is very little doubt that the rents which have to be charged for the bulk of the new houses now being built are inflicting a very great strain upon the resources of those who are paying them, while they make it absolutely impossible for many others to obtain the accommodation which they desire in a new house, because it is altogether beyond their means. I myself, am not in favour of lowering the standard of housing, but it is no use to blink facts, and while it is very easy to be eloquent about the difference between the houses occupied by the rich or the poor, as a matter of fact you cannot divide the population by a sharp line into two categories of that kind. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are already divided."] No. they are not divided into two categories. There is every possible gradation between the rich and the poor, and each category must adapt its methods of life to its means. [Laughter.] The hon. Member opposite laughs, but I thought I was speaking what was almost a truism. What I want particularly to emphasise is that you cannot pick out of the general budget of the housekeeper one particular item, namely, the rent of the house, and consider that that is to be free of the restrictions which naturally apply to all the other expenses of the household. It applies to every item in the budget. Everything must be adapted to the question of means, or otherwise they will come to disaster. I think it is a mistake to assume that every family wants a bigger house which not only ranks higher in rent than the house which they are now occupying but which means more work in cleaning and more expense to keep warm.

Mr. PALIN: The modern house means less.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member says, "The modern house means less." What I am saving is that a large house means more work in cleaning than a small one.

HON. MEMBERS: Not necessarily.

Mr. PALIN: I have never seen a corporation house which will give much difficulty on that score.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member has not talked to so many working people as I have. Local authorities are finding that they are getting towards the end of that section of the community who can pay the rents of houses such as they are now erecting, and that being so, I think they are wise in remembering that what they have to compare is not a small new house with a large new house, but a small new house with the houses in which people are living now, or the room in a house in which people are living now, and that if they do, as many of them desire to, build houses which contain all the necessaries of life but with somewhat smaller accommodation than those which the people have been in the habit of living in lately, they will probably be meeting the wishes of the greater number of their inhabitants.
But there is another method by which I think people may be helped to obtain houses in which they can afford to live. Last December I asked the House to approve a Draft Order under which the subsidies payable under the Acts of 1923 and 1924 would be reduced as from October next by an amount which was equivalent to a capital sum of £25 per house. I based that proposal upon the assumption that some part, at any rate, of the present cost of houses was actually due to the subsidy itself.

Mr. MacLAREN: Hear, hear.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said I thought that the figures in our possession indicated that there was a definite correlation between the prices of new houses and the amount of subsidy given. I showed that the price of houses had gone up as the subsidy had been increased, and I argued that it might well be reasoned that if the subsidy were reduced the cost of houses would be reduced also. That proposal met with the strongest disapproval from hon. Members opposite. They exhausted themselves in prophecies of disaster. The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) said this was going to wreck the building industry. The Liberal party put up two speakers to express the view that this would mean an increase in rents. although, of course,
we had some of the party in the Lobby with us, and there were others who did not vote at all—pursuing the usual plan. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood), whom I am sorry not to see here, said that unless the price of houses came down by at least £25 either the rents or the rates must go up. That, I am bound to say, seemed to me a self-evident proposition, but the point of his statement was that he himself believed there was no possibility of any such reduction in the price as he suggested was necessary to prevent this rise in rents or rates. I am happy to say that events have completely justified the predictions I made when I asked the House to approve that Draft Order. The prices of non-parlour houses, which before the commencement of the withdrawal of the subsidy had ranged from £440 to £450, fell immediately to the neighbourhood of £425. Since then there has been a still further drop.

Mr. MacLAREN: For houses giving the same accommodation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, exactly the same—until the very last month, when the average size of the houses has been distinctly smaller, but, then, the price has actually gone down to something below £400. So we see that the result of reducing the subsidy has not been to wreck the industry, it has not put up rents and it has reduced the price of houses. So much for housing; but before I go to an entirely different subject I would like to say something about town planning, which is a kindred subject.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of housing, will he explain to the Committee just precisely why the reduction has come about as a result of the lowering of the subsidy? What is the cause of that reduction? Who has been doing the robbing?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the speech I made when I submitted the Draft Order to the House, in which I did explain exactly what I thought would happen. As that has happened, perhaps the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not take up the time of the Committee in repeating what I said. I am glad to be able to record that public appreciation of the value of town
planning seems to be generally increasing. Local authorities and the public generally are realising that careful prevision in the method of development of any given area is a real practical economy. It saves unnecessary and wasteful expenditure in the future, and, at the same time, preserves amenities and conveniences for the public. At the present time some 2,700,000 acres are covered by town planning and regional planning schemes of various kinds. The development of regional planning is of the greatest importance, because it is obvious that to plan a limited area without regard to what will happen in the surrounding areas must necessarily mean a good deal of wasted time, and may lead to the adoption of plans which subsequently will have to be altered. Therefore, I am very glad to know that the adoption of regional planning, which involves the co-operation of a great number of local authorities—the Committees include a total of 621 authorities—is proceeding so rapidly and smoothly, and I think further progress in this direction will be very valuable for the country as a whole.
In those schemes and otherwise local authorities are beginning to make much greater provision than they have done in the past for playing fields. I would like to pay my tribute of gratitude and admiration to the National Playing Fields Association, which is carrying on a great movement in the country under the leader ship of His Royal Highness the Duke of York, who in this matter has once again shown his great devotion to the service of the country and the Empire. In this connection there are two matters of special interest to London. One is that steps have at last been taken to set up a Regional Committee for Greater London. That is a problem which has engaged the attention of local authorities and of Governments for many years past. Greater London presents problems which are unique in the constitution of its local authorities, and in the extent of its area, and. while I do not expect that progress in this direction will be very rapid, yet it is satisfactory to think that there is now going to be a body set up to examine those problems as a whole, and not merely to treat them from a sectional point of view.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the preservation of London
squares. There has been a good deal of anxiety expressed about the future of the London squares, not unnaturally, in view of what has happened in particular cases. A little while ago the London County Council passed a resolution asking the Government to make an inquiry into the best way of preserving London squares. The Government have accepted the view of the London County Council. We propose to set up a Royal Commission to go into the whole question, and I hope before very long to be able to announce the members of the Commission and the Terms of Reference.

Miss WILKINSON: Will the Terms of Reference include the opening of certain squares for the children to play in?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot say yet what the Terms of Reference will be.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Concerning the Royal Commission to be appointed to deal with London squares, will the right hon. Gentleman be more precise about the progress made with regard to the regional authority for Greater London?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I called a conference of the authorities concerned, and they are appointing representatives on the regional committee. I come now to another question. I had not intended to say anything about the administration of boards of guardians this afternoon, because the subject was fully debated on Monday night, but I must take some notice of a statement which was made on that occasion by the hon. Member for the Stratford Division of West Ham (Mr. Groves). The hon. Member for Stratford on that occasion said he had never been accused of making an extravagant statement, but I am afraid I must now make a beginning in that direction, because he made a statement which I can only characterise as extravagant. The hon. Member for Stratford stated that relief had been given during the general strike to a number of persons without conditions, and that since the new guardians had been in office people had been engaged in writing up in the books against the sums paid in relief to various individuals during the general strike the words "On loan." In other words, as I understand the statement, the hon. Member accused the administration
under the new guardians of endeavouring to falsify the books so as to enable the guardians to recover the relief given to those individuals during the general strike, although that relief was given to them without their knowledge that it was to be considered as having been granted on loan. That is a very serious charge to make against a board of guardians, and if it could be substantiated and shown that such a course was taken by the authority and with the knowledge of the guardians themselves, it would be such a condemnation of them as would certainly require the most serious attention of the Minister of Health. I do not think that a statement of such gravity ought to be made without the hon. Member making himself fully acquainted with the facts beforehand. I am glad that the hon. Member made the statement in this House, because it does give me an opportunity of telling the Committee what is the information which I have received upon this subject from the chairman of the board of guardians. He says:
During the general strike relief was given in this union, and the relief so given was, according to practice entered on the relieving officer's, record cards. It was on these cards that the words 'On loan' were written at the time, and were signed by the applicants, and it is this card which is produced it Court when proceedings are taken to recover relief so given. During the general strike this special relief was not entered in the application and report book by the relieving officer, under instruction. So far as I can discover, beyond the transfer to the application and report books during two or three weeks after the close of the general strike, and in no case after the 18th July last, of the words already existing on the relieving officers' record cards, not entry such as described by the hon. Member in the House of Commons. has been made in the books referred to.
The real fact is that where relief was given on loan the words "on loan" were put on the relieving officers' record cards at the time, and they were signed by the applicants, so that it is quite without foundation to say that they did not know that relief was given on loan, and the entries made in the application book have merely been the transfer of the information already on the record cards and in no sense constitute any alteration of the records.

Mr. PALIN: Were those entries signed by the chairman of the relief committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said the cards were signed by the applicants. The hon. Member is asking something about the old guardians.

Mr. PALIN: Yes, you are telling us something about the old guardians.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The charge which I am dealing with has been made against the new guardians. The hon. Member who has interrupted me is not concerned with West Eam.

Mr. PALIN: I put my question in a perfectly friendly spirit in order to get information, because I know it is usual for the chairman, or whoever presides over the relief committee, to sign the report and application book or the card, and I want to know if that was done in these particular cases.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is entirely irrelevant to the point with which I am dealing. The point I am dealing with is the charge made that the new guardians falsified the books, or that somebody else falsified them on their behalf, and I hope the hon. Member for Stratford will, in due course, withdraw the charge which he has made.

Mr. GROVES: I will deal with it.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I now come to the question of National Health Insurance which is closely associated with the administration of the Contributory Pensions Act. The administration of the latter Act has necessitated an increase in my staff which accounts for £90,000 of the increase in the Estimates. That is very largely in connection with the claims of the people who will be able to obtain old age pensions next year after attainment of the age of 65. Already we have had some 324,000 claims which are, of course, undergoing examination at the present time. Meanwhile, I may mention that, pensions and allowances have already been awarded to widows and orphans by which no less than 714,000 persons have benefited under this Act. With regard to Health Insurance proper, I would like to say something about the additional benefits which have been provided out of the surpluses disclosed upon the second valuation of approved societies. The Committee may possibly remember that nearly £24,000,000 was shown to be available for distribution under the second
valuation, but, out of that £24,000,000, over £11,000,000 has already been allocated by the societies for additional cash benefits, leaving therefore some £12,000,000 available for non-cash benefits. That £12,000,000 is again increased by the State grant and interest until it has reached the astonishing sum of £18,000,000 available for distribution in treatment benefits during the five years which are covered by the surpluses under this valuation. This means that all together some £3,750,000 a year can be and is being spent on these additional treatment benefits.
The Committee would like to know that the societies have allocated to dental benefits as much as eight times the amount they were able to allocate under the first valuation, and to ophthalmic benefit as much as 12½ times the amount that they formerly allocated. In connection with dental benefit a scheme has been arranged under which, for the most part, the societies pay 100 per cent. in the case of conservative treatment of teeth and 50 per cent. of the cost of dentures, and we have set up, as recommended by the Royal Commission, a regional dental service consisting of one principal and five regional dental officers whose duty it is to advise in cases of dispute between approved societies and dentists. That has required, and will require, a large number of examinations of the persons concerned. Up to the present there have been something like 2,600 references to those regional officers. The greater part of those references has already been cleared, but a certain amount of delay has been experienced owing to the fact that nearly 40 per cent. of the insured persons concerned have failed to keep their appointments with the dentists. I can quite imagine reasons why they have not been anxious to meet their dentists, but I hope, as they get more experience, their attendance will improve, and I do feel very well satisfied that the provisions of this additional benefit, under which over 12,000,000 people many of whom have never been under the hands of a dentist before, will now have their teeth attended to, will mean greatly improved health on the part of the insured persons, and, as a consequence, of course, a decrease in the claims upon the funds of the approved societies.

Mr. LAWSON: Does the Department provide gas?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would like to mention that the International Labour Conference, which has just concluded its labours, has been considering the organisation of compulsory sickness insurance applicable to countries partaking in the Conference, and they have, by a very large majority—I think there were about 38 countries represented in the Conference—adopted a draft Convention, which is based principally upon the same principle as our own Health Insurance scheme, and I have hopes that the majority of them, at any rate, will see their way to ratify the Convention, because it is obvious that these things have an economic application, and that the competition which naturally arises between one country and another is somewhat embittered if in one case there are contributions payable on the part of industry which are not similarly to be found in other countries.
With regard to the state of the public health, I am glad to be able to give a good report. There are two general tests which we apply, namely, the general death rate and the infantile mortality rate, and in both cases it has shown an improvement. Last year the general death rate was 11.6 per 1,000, which compared with an average of 12.2 per 1,000 in the five years preceding, and the infantile mortality rate, which had been 76 per 1,000 in the preceding five years, came down to 70. That is particularly satisfactory, not only because it means that some thousands of babies born in 1926 survived who would have perished if they had been born under the conditions of 1925, but it also means that there is a corresponding improvement in the general health and physique of the children who survive, because the same conditions which kill in the one instance also maim and injure in the generality of cases. It denotes, therefore, a general improvement in the physique of the infant population, and I think I may say also an increase in the understanding of the responsibilities and the duties of motherhood. I do not think that one can say too much in praise of the great system of maternity and child welfare centres which are now spread right throughout the country, and upon which
an immense amount of devoted voluntary effort is being expended. To that, I think, we must ascribe, in large measure, the continued improvement in the infantile mortality rate with which we have so much reason to be satisfied.
In other respects the health of the nation, I think, continues to improve. There is a steady decline in the mortality which is due to tuberculosis, to scarlet fever and to typhoid fever. I wish I could say as much for cancer. I am sorry to say the deaths from cancer continue to increase, and I am not able to announce any new discovery which gives us hope of being, at an early date, able to cope with that disease. But our knowledge is increasing all the time. We are always finding out more about the conditions and circumstances in which this disease arises, and I have little doubt that the day will come—and we hope it is not far distant—when we shall be able to put it amongst those diseases of which we consider ourselves the master. There is one other complaint about which I must say a word, and that is small-pox. The records of the number of cases of small-pox in this country are becoming very alarming. I go back to 1922, when there were 97[...] cases. In 1923, there were 2,500; in 1924, 3,800; in 1925, 5,300; in 1926, 10,100 and this year, up to the end of May, we have had 8,700 cases.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is that for England and Wales alone?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is England and Wales, including London; it does not include Scotland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Deaths?"] No, cases—not deaths. Fortunately, the type of small-pox at present is of a very mild character, but one is always afraid that we may see a recurrence of that very virulent form of which we have had experience before, and which is one of the most deadly diseases of which we know. I have said that I have set up a committee to inquire into the question of vaccination, and I do not propose, therefore, to say anything more upon the subject now, except that it is quite clear, I think, from these figures that the extent of the disease is now assuming serious proportions, and, even though mild in character, it is inflicting an amount of pain, suffering and loss which is preventible, and ought to be
prevented, and that presently we shall have to take some further steps to see if we cannot diminish it.
I know our time is limited this afternoon, and I do not want to make as long a statement as I made last year, but there are one or two other matters upon which I must touch, I think, before I sit down. I am credibly informed that there are 9,000,000,000 cells in the human brain. I am sure that everyone of them will be wanted by anybody who tries to make himself acquainted with all the intricacies of the Department of the Ministry of Health. I am not going to attempt to touch upon them all, but I wonder a little whether the Committee realises the part which this country is playing in measures which are taken internationally for the prevention of disease and the improvement of health. The League of Nations has a Health Committee upon which we have a representative and upon which there is also, I am glad to say, a representative of India. I hope in future, there may be representatives also of other parts of the Empire. It is engaged at the present time in two pieces of work which are certainly of direct interest to us as a country and to the British Empire. One of them is concerned with the establishment of an Epidemic intelligence centre at Singapore. The sanitary administration of the ports in the Far East is a particularly difficult problem, because each one of those ports is surrounded by great areas in which conditions are such that epidemic diseases are always present, and it is of the very first importance to prevent the spread of diseases like yellow fever, plague or smallpox by communicating information from one sanitary port officer to another. By the generosity of the Rockefeller Trustees, this epidemic intelligence centre has been established at Singapore, and, thanks to that and to the introduction and development of wireless it is now possible to convey information with great rapidity and at an extremely low cost, and I think the results are invaluable to British interests generally and to British shipping in particular.
Then I will mention the work which is being done by the League of Nations Health Committee in the investigation of the prevention of malaria. Of course, we know a great deal about malaria now, thanks largely to the researches of
British investigators. We know that malaria can be stamped out in particular localities, as, of course, was done in Panama, but these measures are very expensive, and what the League is doing now is an attempt to discover some new methods of prevention which may perhaps be less intensive in their scope, but which will be less expensive, and can therefore be put into operation over larger areas.
I must pass over any account of the Paris Sanitary Conference that was held last year, or of the Pacific Health Conference at Melbourne, at both of which we were represented very ably by the officers of my Department; but I would like finally to mention two projects, both of first-rate importance, which are now proceeding in London. In, I think, 1920, a Committee was set up, under the chairmanship of Lord Athlone, by the then Minister of Health, Dr. Addison, and one of its recommendations was that there should be established in London a school of hygiene and tropical medicine. That school is now being built. The Rockefeller Trustees, who take the greatest and most eclectic interest in all matters of international health, have contributed a sum of 2,000,000 dollars, and the British Government has made itself responsible for the maintenance of the school when it is completed. Its object is to provide means for the study of public health in all its forms, and of tropical medicine in particular, and it is of the greatest interest to the British Empire, because there are many portions of the Empire in the tropics whose future prosperity depends largely upon our power to control tropical diseases, which at present take such a tremendous toll of our people and of the native populations. We believe that this school will form a centre to which can come those who are proposing to embark upon a career as medical officers of health or medical practitioners in the tropics, where they will be able to see clinical material actually suffering from the tropical diseases which they will find when they get to their destinations, and where, also, they will be able to study those general principles of public health which govern all administration of the kind, whether in the tropics or in temperate climes.
The other project to which I have referred is also one of the recommendations
of the Athlone Committee. It was that there should be established in London a post-graduate medical school. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, this recommendation has never yet been carried out, but now, I think, we are approaching a time when we shall be able to see it accomplished. I myself, some little time ago, set up a very strong committee of physicians and surgeons, of which I took the chairmanship myself, to consider what was the best way of carrying it into effect. The committee laid it down that it was not possible to combine in one school undergraduate and post-graduate teaching, and that is a conclusion which I think is supported by all expert opinion. Therefore, they had to consider whether they should contemplate the building of a new school, or whether it would be possible to adapt some existing institution. We decided against the building of a new school, because that not only meant the building of a school, but it also meant, in order to obtain the necessary clinical material, the building of a hospital with, perhaps, 400 beds; and that would have involved, not only a very large capital expenditure, but also an annual liability for the maintenance of the hospital. The committee, therefore, devoted themselves to an examination of various existing institutions, and they have come to the conclusion that they can find what they want in the West London Hospital at Hammersmith. That is a hospital which has had a long experience of post-graduate teaching. It has space into which it can extend, so that the necessary lecture-rooms and laboratories and additional beds can be provided, and the scheme has been accepted in principle by the authorities of the West London Hospital. At the present time the buildings are being examined by technical experts with a view to seeing how they can be adapted and extended so as to make them available for this purpose.
If this scheme can be brought to a conclusion, it is going to be a great thing for the medical services of this country and of the Empire, and, I think I might almost say, of the world. One of the difficulties to-day is that medical practitioners, who may have had a magnificent training before they enter into practice, go down into some remote part of the country, and find themselves unable
in any way to keep themselves abreast of the most modern work. I should hope that in this school it will be possible to give short refresher courses to general insurance practitioners, so that they may come up to London and ascertain what are the latest methods of dealing with the problems with which they are faced—

Mr. MacLAREN: Would it be compulsory?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not contemplating that at present; obviously financial difficulties would arise. I hope, however, that practitioners will avail themselves of it as it becomes further known. More than that, it will be a meeting place where medical men will come from all parts of the Empire to exchange ideas, to exchange experience, to see what the latest experiments and the latest methods are, and how successful they have been. I find that in America also a project of this kind is welcomed most warmly. Many American doctors like from time to time to come over to Europe to see what is being done here, and to check what they are doing over there against European experience. They do not always understand foreign languages, and sometimes, indeed, we do not understand their language, but in a school of this kind they would find their British brethren and would welcome very heartily the opportunities that they would get in such an establishment for exchanging ideas. The completion of a scheme of this kind would mean the expenditure of large sums of money, but, when it is realised what a great conception this is, and what a vast influence it may have in raising the general standard of medical practice, not only in this country but in other countries, I feel confident that the funds which are necessary to bring it to completion will not be wanting.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Will this hospital be built and financed by the State, or privately?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not at present contemplating that it should be financed by the State—

Dr. DAVIES: What connection will the Ministry of Health have with it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is possible that a contribution might be given to
such a hospital from the educational point of view, and that would bring the Ministry of Health into very close contact with it. But I do not think my hon. Friend need be anxious, if that be his fear, that it would in any way be divorced from the Ministry of Health, because, if such a course as I have suggested were adopted, for instance, for general practitioners engaged in the work of National Health Insurance, the Ministry of Health would certainly be brought into intimate connection with it. I have already taken up more time than I meant to take, and I will not detain the Committee longer. I commend to them the approval of these Estimates, and the sanctioning of the funds which are necessary to enable me to carry out the work.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I move this reduction in the salary of the Minister of Health in order to draw attention to one or two matters connected with his Department. The right hon. Gentleman has travelled over a very wide field in the comparatively short time during which he has been Minister of Health, and I am sure that everyone will sympathise especially with the concluding portion of his speech, in which he opened up vistas of usefulness which show him to have imagination as well as ability. I am sure that, when he sets out to pursue the mosquito, he will be led almost to circumnavigate the globe, and in that process he will, of course, pass places where much has been done, where there are many monuments to British research and British ability, and where the names of Manson, Ross and others are held in reverence; and I am sure that every Member of this Committee will wish him and his successors success in the pursuit of those matters. I want briefly to refer to some other matters nearer home, where the right hon. Gentleman started. I think we shall all agree that the figures which he gave in regard to the housing problem do show progress, and are satisfactory to that extent, but I hope, and, indeed I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that the problem is solved. Members of the House of Commons who, like myself, represent working-class constituencies, still receive, I am perfectly sure, vast numbers of letters and complaints and appeals for help from people who are living in one, two or three rooms,
and, although I personally feel that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's truism, or dictum, with regard to the necessity of living within one's means, was received rather more critically than need have been the case, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman himself will realise that housing itself, and the expenditure of any given family upon housing, is not a self-contained problem. I think that what he said would have been welcomed with more acclamation if one were certain that in all aspects of Government policy efforts will be directed to keeping those things which are needed by the working-class population as cheap and as easily accessible as they possibly can be, and of the best possible quality.
From housing to town planning is, of course, a very short step. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced the subject of town planning and regional planning, because I want to put to him a question which, perhaps, his colleague can answer later in the day. He said that regional planning was so important because the planning of one centre or one area might be spoilt if the adjacent area were badly planned. That, of course, is true, but it is equally true that the good planning of a new area may be rendered difficult or almost impossible if existing built-over areas are badly planned. It would not be in order here to discuss matters which we have often discussed, and in which I have taken some part, in endeavouring to impress upon the Minister of Transport the need for looking ahead in matters of planning so far as they relate to roadways and transport from one place to another; but the question I want to put is this: Is there any means of consultation, and is there any consultation, on matters of town planning, between the two Departments of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Minister of Transport, whose work is obviously so closely related in this matter. There is another small point upon which I may be able to get an answer later, and here I come to the question of National Health Insurance, upon which the right hon. Gentleman also touched, and which, of course, is very closely associated with some of the things that he mentioned in his speech. I understand that there is a draft Bill, or that there is a Bill in contemplation, dealing with approved societies and their position. I
am not going to discuss any question relating to the Bill or what is in the Bill, because it would be out of order to discuss legislation. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether when the Bill is ready his Department will undertake to circulate it to the approved societies before it is introduced. That might fairly be called an administrative act and not a legislative act. There are precedents in this matter in regard to the Factories Bill and the Road Traffic Bill, which were circulated.
I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to some of the matters relating to the Ministry of Health in its administration of the National Health Insurance Act. The right hon. Gentleman quoted some figures, and I would like to ask for a few more. He said that there was an increase in the Estimate of, I think, £1,250,000 over the preceding year.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: £1,100,000.

Mr. CRAWFURD: The right hon. Gentleman gave us items in regard to the health services and the additional staff necessary on account of pensions. If I am not misinformed, we have to add to that sum a considerable amount, because there was passed through this House last Session an Act of Parliament called the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, and in that Act it was estimated that there would be a net saving to the Ministry of £4,100,000. I am speaking from memory, but I think that the expenditure under health insurance, that is the Government contribution, unlike the payment for old age pensions and widows' pensions, is put into the Ministry of Health Vote. The estimated saving under this head was that the Government grants would be reduced by £2,800,000, and that there would be an additional saving of £1,900,000 because the expense of certain medical services would be passed on to the approved societies. That makes a total of £4,700,000. There is an item, which I cannot completely understand, of a saving amounting to £600,000, due to some financial transaction, leaving a net saving of £4,100,000. The net result is that, as compared with 1924, the Ministry saved £4,100,000 but is spending £500,000 more. Therefore, the total increase in the two years is £4,500,000. It would be interesting to have an analysis of those figures.
Now I turn to the question of national health insurance, and I would draw the attention of the Committee and of the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Circular which was issued by the Ministry in December, 1926. It is headed:
Investments, A.635, National Health Insurance.
Notice to Approved Societies.
Owing to the falling off in receipts from contributions and the unusually heavy issues of cash to Approved Societies to meet certain current expenditure on benefits and administration, together with the extra moneys required for additional benefits during the year 1926, the Department is not in a position to make any interim issue of moneys for investment by or on behalf of societies in January, 1927.
The Committee may need to be reminded of what is implied in the last three lines of that notice. As I understand it, the position is this, that the contributions to national health insurance are kept in the National Health Insurance Fund, and any surplus over and above the cash payments required to pay for the benefits is invested. Part of these investments are made by the approved societies and part by the Minister, or under his direction, through the National Debt Commissioners. I think that is the process. In pursuance of that system, from time to time the Minister hands over sums of money which are due to the approved societies for investment by them. It is these sums of money which we are told will not be available this year. There will be no money for investment by the approved societies, and, presumably, any portion which is normally invested by the Minister will not be available for investment this year. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the circumstances in which this state of things arises.
The right hon. Gentleman drew a very alluring picture of the benefits that arose and the extra benefits that were distributed as a result of the second valuation. I think that valuation was made at the end of December, 1923. It may be interesting to tell the Committee what progress has been made in regard to the surplus which is available for distribution under the National Health Insurance Act. The first valuation was made at the end of 1918, and for an insurable population of just under 16,000,000 of people there was a
gross surplus of £17,250,000. Of that £17,250,000, some £9,000,000 was disposed of in additional benefits and £8,000,000 was carried forward. There were certain increases in benefits. Compared with a surplus of £17,250,000 for 16,000,000 insured persons in 1918, we find that in 1923 the surplus had grown to £42,000,000 gross, in respect of just under 14,500,000 people. Therefore, there was an enormous increase, and in that year the disposable surplus was large. The right hon. Gentleman says it was £24,000,000, but I have a figure of £27,000,000, which is presumably for Great Britain. Perhaps the £24,000,000 surplus refers to England only. That is not the material point. The material point is that in these five years between the first valuation and the second valuation the total surplus grew from £17,250,000 to £42,500,000, and what is called the disposable surplus grew from £9,000,000 to £24,000,000 or £27,000,000, a very large increase. In spite of the £24,000,000 or the £27,000,000 of disposable surplus, there was a surplus carried forward which I understand was £16,000,000 but the right hon. Gentleman says was £12,000,000. Again, it may be a case of England against Great Britain. These surpluses are built up out of the balances which remain over after the benefits are paid and which are invested either by the approved societies or by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the approved societies.
The right hon. Gentleman in his speech this afternoon has told the Committee of the incalculable benefit to the health of the nation which is derived from these health services. He mentioned dental treatment, ophthalmic treatment and other treatments. I believe that since 1923 there has been an increase in maternity benefit of 9s., sickness benefit, 4s. 6d., and disablement benefit, 2s. 3d. These are the benefits which arise when the surpluses come to be distributed. It is necessary to refer to legislation at this point in order to make clear what has happened under the right hon. Gentleman's administration. It is very largely due to the results of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of last year that there is in the present year no surplus for investment. In other words, the balances which accumulate, the surpluses which become available at the end of every five years,
as far as I can see at the moment largely as a result of the action of the Government in the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of last year, will not be available, and the suggestion which I am making to the Committee is that the circular to the approved societies, which I have quoted, is misleading because it attributes the lack of money for investment to certain causes which have operated, while one of the chief causes is the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, for which the Government were responsible. Assuming it to be true that to the extent of nearly one-half the lack of disposable balance for investment is due to that Act, then that fact ought to have been made known. The increase in the surplus available for investment during the year 1925 was just over £9,000,000, that is to say, taking the amount invested at the end of 1924—which was roughly £96,500,000—by the end of 1925 that had increased by over £9,000,000. That sum was available for investment in 1926, half by the societies and half by the Minister on behalf of the societies. For the year 1927 there is no corresponding sum for investment. That being so, and it being largely due to the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, passed by the Government, the circular issued by the right hon. Gentleman's Department to the approved societies acquainting them with the fact that there is no money for investment, should have included that fact in the statement.
I pass to another matter. It is two years ago since the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary piloted through Committee and through the House of Commons the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. I daresay many hon. Members of the Committee may have more or less forgotten that Committee.

Mr. RHYS: No.

Mr. CRAWFURD: My hon. Friend says "No," and I can sympathise with him, because I was a member of that Committee and I remember the many days and hours that we spent upstairs investigating that matter. During the passage of that Act certain differences of opinion arose. It is too long ago now for me to carry in my mind the whole of the circumstances. During the progress of the Act through the House I think certain exception was taken to a proposal made
by the right hon. Gentleman by Members on his own side. Certain exception was taken as to the authority which he wished to set up as the rating and valuation authority in the rural district, and I am not sure—I do not want to make a charge against the right hon. Gentleman—but there is grave reason for believing that under his administration of the Act things are now being done which were, in effect, rejected by the Committee, and that the administration of the Act by the right hon. Gentleman is in some cases in contradiction to the avowed intention of the Act. I am referring particularly to the activities of the Central Valuation Committee set up by Section 57 of the Rating and Valuation Act. Sub-section (2) says:
The Central Valuation Committee shall take into consideration the operation of this Act and shall give to the Minister such information and make to him such representations in respect thereto as they may consider desirable for promoting uniformity.
Sub-section (5) says:
Any scheme to be made by the Minister under this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith.
So that the Section makes it perfectly clear that the function of the Central Valuation Committee is purely advisory. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for its acts and the Central Valuation Committee is responsible to him and to no one else, and before anything it does or advises can be made effective it should be made the subject of a scheme by the right hon. Gentleman and should be laid before the House. If the Committee will bear that in mind, and will also bear in mind that the valuation authority is the borough council, the urban district council and the rural district council, and that the county authority has only certain limited powers, they will be able to follow the importance of what I am now going to quote. This Central Valuation Committee has made two series of recommendations to the right hon. Gentleman. The first contains advice to the county authorities. I propose to quote from Resolution 28B on page 24:
The recommendation is that in administrative counties the wisest and most economic plan to achieve this end will probably be for the County Valuation Committee to appoint permanently or retain the services of a professional valuer, to be known as the county valuer.
There is nothing against the Act in that because, as I recollect, the county authority has power to make certain representations if valuations within its area show a lack of uniformity. It has certain rights, if there are appeals, to make objection to the valuation, but it has no right whatever to insist upon its own valuation being carried out in the county or under the other authorities, and if there is any question whatever about that, I will quote a passage from one of the right hon. Gentleman's own speeches. During those interminable Committees, when I am sure the right hon. Gentleman kept the clearest head of the lot among all of us, he made this speech:
The hon. Member for Maldon said there were no powers given to the County Valuation Committees to impose their will on the various assessment authorities. I agree, and I do not imagine he would desire that power should be given to the county council or to the committee of the county council, the County Valuation Committee, to dictate to assessment authorities how they should carry on their valuation.
That being so, the right hon. Gentleman sets up this Central Valuation Committee. They make their recommendation, and the paragraph following the one I have quoted from this recommendation 28B reads:
Further, that such a county valuer should not only advise the County Valuation Committee, but be at the disposal of the rating authorities and the administrative county, and that where rating authorities find it necessary themselves to employ or engage additional professional persons for the valuation of special property, the latter shall be required, as a condition of their employment, to work in close co-operation with the county valuer.
I admit at once that the words "close co-operation" do not necessarily mean "under the control of." But what is the right hon. Gentleman's share? What part does he take these recommendations? Last March the right hon. And gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) asked the right hon. Gentleman a question relating to these recommendations. He asked:
If the recommendations of the Central Valuation Committee constituted under Section 57 of the Act and circulated by the Ministry to local authorities have received his approbation and are instructions upon which it is intended that valuations are to proceed.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
The recommendation of the Central Valuation Committee, which is a committee composed almost entirely of representatives of local authorities, was circulated by me practically in the form in which I received it.
Now I want to ask, do those recommendations constitute a scheme in the words of the Act? If they do, they should have been laid before Parliament. If they do not, what is the right hon. Gentleman's reason for circulating them to all local authorities? The answer went on:
The committee, as they themselves point out, are an advisory body, and their recommendations, which I have brought to the notice of rating and assessment authorities, are not instructions.
There can surely be only one interpretation. If you take the Section of the Act:
Any recommendation made by this Central Valuation Committee, which are to be acted on.
Recommendations that are to be acted upon surely constitute a scheme and should be laid before Parliament. I am informed, indeed the right hon. Gentleman himself said, that these recommendations have gone out to county authorities, who, believing them to be instructions, have proceeded to act upon them as though they were instructions, and you have all over the country county authorities appointing valuation officers, sometimes at very high salaries, and in some cases they are suggesting to the Valuation Committee that they should take the county valuer, while in others, the valuation authorities are refusing to do anything of the kind, and in those cases the officers who have been appointed have nothing to do. They are sitting about asking what their work is. I am told of one place where a county authority, erring on the side of caution, indulged in an expenditure only of £2,000 a year, while in others it is as much as £10,000. The people who have been appointed are in some cases the very type of person who, after much discussion upstairs, was kept out of the administration of the Act. That is the Inland Revenue officer. The upshot of it was this.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Does the hon. Member say that Inland Revenue officers have been brought in in connection with valuation?

Mr. CRAWFURD: I had not quite finished. I do not suggest for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman or his Department have brought in Inland Revenue officers as against the spirit of the Act. I think the Act actually mentioned that they shall not be brought in. What I am suggesting is done is that by allowing these recommendations to go out, in fact with his imprimatur on them, not having gone through the process laid down in the Act of Parliament, he has conveyed the impression—that point may or may not be valid, but by allowing these recommendations to go out he has created the impression that they are instructions front the Ministry. Under those recommendations many county authorities have appointed valuation officers, some of whom are people whose only experience has been as Inland Revenue officers. They are ex-officers of the Inland Revenue. Valuing for the purpose of Inland Revenue and valuing for the purpose of a rating authority are two entirely different things, and if there is any doubt as to the difficulty that has been experienced through the appointment of these officers, let me quote a passage from an address recently given by a very distinguished authority on rating and valuation, Mr. Michael Farraday:
Within the last week I was told by a prominent official of one of the largest towns in the Midlands that their council proposed to employ valuers and that they themselves intended to value the class of property with which this statement primarily deals.
Then follows a conversation:
I asked him if he found 20 houses of similar accommodation, how he proposed to deal with matters. His answer was, 'I should assess them at the rent they paid.' My next query was, 'Supposing the rents vary for the reasons illustrated above, what will happen then? His answer was, 'You cannot assess a man above his rent. That has been rating law for many years.' I then put to him this query, 'Can you assess him below his rent?' His answer was, 'No, certainly not. He must get his rent reduced if he wants his assessment reduced.'
You have under this Act, which was going to produce uniformity of rating, assessment and valuation, people working who do not know the first principles, or rather the value of entirely different principles from those which have always been used for valuation purposes for rating.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the hon. Member suggest that that is the only case, or are there others?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. CRAWFURD: There are others, and, if it be true that people have been appointed to these posts under the county authorities, whose sole experience has been as Inland Revenue officers, it follows, as a matter of course, that that type of person is operating on one system in one place and another type of person is operating on another system in another place, and you do not get uniformity of operation at all. These recommendations, if they are to be issued to valuation authorities throughout the country, should follow the process which is laid down in the Act, and should be submitted to this House as a scheme under Section 27 of the Rating and Valuation Act.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the hon. Member suggest that these are instructions issued by the Ministry of Health?

Mr. CRAWFURD: Not for a moment. I thank the hon. Member for perhaps helping to make this point clear. I do not suggest that for one moment. What I do say is that these recommendations, being issued and being taken by the local authorities as instructions, as the form suggests they are—

Sir K. WOOD: indicated dissent.

Mr. CRAWFURD: They are recommendations, but, being issued by the Ministry of Health, they obviously appear to the local authorities as though they were instructions. I say that the recommendation I quoted does misrepresent the intention of the Act and that local authorities have been quite honestly misled by that particular recommendation. At any rate, I should like to have the reply of the hon. Member to the point which I have raised on that matter. The hon. Member asked me if I had other examples. I do not want to quote other eases. There are cases that have been given, but I do not want to go on those lines.
There is a second point with regard to the administration of this Act to which I want to draw attention, and it is this. The hon. Member himself will remember that those provisions of the Act which deal with the rating of machinery were
hailed by hon. Members on this side of the House and hon. Members above the Gangway as being the first step in the conversion of the hon. Member to views which many of us hold, and although a certain amount of opposition developed from some hon. Members above the Gangway on the ground that the burden taken off machinery might be better distributed among poor property, there was, on the whole, general acceptance by the House of the principle of the unrating or de-rating of machinery. The Act laid down the method by which this was to be carried out. The method was that first of all a Committee was appointed, under a distinguished late Home Secretary of this House, to formulate rules which should lay down what was the type of machinery which was to be rated and what was the type of process machinery which was not to be rated. Subsequently, there were recommendations of that Committee which were accepted and adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. Subsequently to those recommendations being received, a panel of referees was set up who are now charged with giving decisions as to whether this or that piece of machinery shall or shall not be rated. I am told that the panel is composed entirely, or practically entirely, of professional men, professional surveyors and valuers, whose experience has been that they have appeared for local rating authorities.
I am not going to say one word which will suggest that professional men of that type are consciously biased because they happen from time to time to have been in the service of the local authority, but it is quite clear to anyone who has followed the history of arbitration awards under the Land Clauses Consolidation Acts that people whose experience lies in one direction or one channel must of necessity be unconsciously biased on the side of those people whom they habitually engaged to represent. Where you have people who all their lives have been the expert advisers of local authorities engaged in rating and valuation, and trying to maintain claims of local authorities for such and such a valuation, I think hon. Members will agree that those people are not the best people to be referees when this question between the local authority on the one hand and the person whose machinery is to be rated on the other has to be decided. I would like the hon.
Member to give some explanation of that, or some assurance that something which would be more satisfactory to the people who are rated should be adopted.
The only other point to which I wish to draw attention is a comparatively small one, but it is an important point and it deals with the Second Series of recommendations by the Central Valuation Committee. I am not quite sure whether it is fair to spring this without notice on the hon. Member, but I shall not in the least resent it if he does not give an answer to the point. But here again you have a series of recommendations issued to these rating and valuation authorities by the Minister without their having been first before the House. In the Second Series I come across this very odd thing, which I am sure would rejoice the heart of the right hon. and gallant. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) if he were here. It deals with the rating of agricultural property. It is the Second Series, page 9. There I find this very queer thing. There are suggestions as to how rateable value should be arrived at. No. (iii) deals with an allotment of the gross value of £2 I2s.; net annual value £2 9s. 5d.; rate-able value £1, whereas, just below there is given another case of farm buildings of gross value, not £2 12s., but £3, whose rateable value its given as nil. That an allotment of gross value £2 12s. should have a rateable value of £1 and farm buildings with a gross value of £3 should have a rateable value of nil, is very difficult for me to accept. But whether it be capable of explanation or not is not really the point I want to drive home. What I want to bring out is that these recommendations should not have gone out to the local authorities under the Act unless they had been embodied in a scheme to which the right hon. Gentleman should have given his approval and which should have been laid upon the Table of this House.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I feel sure the Committee will have been very interested in the statement which has been made by the Minister of Health this afternoon. All those who are interested at all in health problems will be very satisfied to read the figures in relation to what are termed "vital statistics," that is, the general decline in the death
and infantile mortality rates. Those who take—as I endeavour co do—some interest in this aspect of life will be equally sad to learn that we are not as yet able to say very much that is favourable in relation to the treatment of cancer. But if I may say so very respectfully I think the right hon. Gentleman omitted what is to some of us a very important feature of the public health of this country and that is mortality in confinement. The right hon. Gentleman, when he has spoken before on general health matters, has, I think, given us some details on that score. Some sections of the community are very dissatisfied at the present position in that sphere. Might I just read a quotation from a Report which was issued as far back as 11 years ago on this matter? The position, as far as I understand it, is very little better now than it was then. Sir Arthur Newsholme, who was an officer in the Ministry at the time, made this very strong statement:
Over 800 mothers die each year in England and Wales as the result of child-bearing, whose lives would be saved if the experience in the rest of England and Wales were as favourable as that of London.
I am informed that about 3,000 women die in childbirth every year in this country, and I would like to know whether London is actually better placed by way of convenience and technical skill in dealing with maternity cases; and, if that be so, whether the Minister would consider doing something, particularly in the provinces, in order that the womenfolk there shall have those facilities which the women of London are able to secure. I know, of course, that maternity nursing in the provinces, especially in Lancashire and Yorkshire, is very different from that of the south and London, because of the large number of women who are employed in the textile industry; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some thought to what is regarded by the women of this country as a very serious problem indeed, and that is the large number of women who die in confinement.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman asking what is being done in London that is not done in the provinces?

Mr. DAVIES: I gather from the statement that I have read that if the conditions were as favourable in the whole of
England and Wales as they are in London 800 lives would be saved annually. What I want to know is what are the conditions that obtain in London which tend to reduce mortality in these cases, that do not prevail in the provinces? I just wanted to say that in passing.
A great deal of the work of the Ministry of Health is now regarded as being beyond party politics; and I think it is well that it should be so. But there are matters which, of course, from their very nature, must be political, and I would refer to one at once. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with housing. I do not profess to be an expert on this problem; I will come to a matter with which I am more familiar later on. But the right hon. Gentleman made a remark, unless I mistook him, which rather led me to believe that he is considering reducing the size of working class houses. I thought his argument was that, because the rent of the present houses which are built by subsidy is too high to meet the pockets of working people, he intends to do something by way of producing smaller houses, presumably in order to reduce the rent. I shall be very glad to learn that I am wrong in this case. May I put it in this way? His argument appeared to be that we have now reached the stage when we have in fact provided a sufficient number of houses, at rents to meet the needs of persons who can afford to pay such high rents. Consequently, he said local authorities are now beginning to consider as to how to meet the needs of persons who cannot afford to pay the rents required for the present sized houses.
That, of course, is logic, but let us see where it is going to lead us. What I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this. It will cause a great deal of alarm if he now proposes to reduce the cost of rent by reducing the size of the house. I should have thought that the only possible way out of this difficulty was not to reduce the size of the house, which, in all conscience, is very small indeed in most cases, but to bring down the building price of the house. The Ministry of Health ought not in 1927 to concentrate its attention upon reducing the size of houses, but rather towards reducing the cost of building them. I should have thought
that that would have been the way a Minister of Health would have travelled in order to reach the goal he has in view. As I have said, I do not pretend to know as much about housing as I do about other subjects which have been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman, but he used the strange argument that the cost of building houses had declined just in proportion—so I understood—to the reduction in the subsidy. I think that was his argument. It was as if to say, "If you reduce the subsidy further the cost of house-building will go down automatically in consequence." Surely, there must be another side to that case. The cost of house-building has not declined merely because of the reduction in the subsidy. If his argument holds good, the Government ought to take away at once all the subsidies they are paying now to various other industries. The subsidy ought to come off the sugar-beet industry; we might then get beet sugar much cheaper than we get it now.
The right hon. Gentleman is very conversant with the housing problem, and if there be anything I envy him, it is his capacity to hurl figures at Members of the Committee without turning to any documents for them. I wish I could do the same. If I were speaking in Welsh I might do quite as well. Let me just analyse, for the moment, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman He said, "When we reduced the subsidy on the last occasion, I prophesied that the cost of house-building would go down almost proportionately"; and, unless I am mistaken, he must have in mind the carrying his point to its logical conclusion, namely, that in order to reduce the cost of house-building further he is going to take away the subsidy altogether. That is the logic of the argument. Is that the case?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is logical to say that because you can argue on one egg and a rasher of bacon you can argue still better on a sitting of eggs and a sucking pig as well?

Mr. DAVIES: When I was a collier I used to consider that two eggs were better than one; and, if the right hon. Gentleman was a manual worker, he would also know the difference between one and two eggs. I will leave it at
that; but really, that argument is strange coming from the right hon. Gentleman. What I want to put against his point of view is this. Surely there are other factors besides the reduction of the subsidy that have entered into the reduction of the cost of house building? If not, what has the Minister been doing? It is his duty to bring about a reduction in the cost of house building in order to reduce the rent to the level that he wants. I agree with him entirely in regard to one thing. The houses we are now building and the wages that are received by the ordinary worker create a gulf between the wages received and the capacity to pay rent for those houses. On that score, I think, he is perfectly right; but I do not think he is going to bridge the gulf by building smaller houses.

Sir K. WOOD: Has the hon. Gentleman any suggestions to make in that direction?

Mr. DAVIES: I have made one. The right hon. Gentleman has explained this afternoon that the cost of house building is still too high; but he did not tell us what he was going to do to reduce the cost. I repeat, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will create alarm—and he has created alarm in my mind already—in the minds of all people interested in housing when he suggests that in order to reduce rents you must reduce the size of the houses. If that argument holds good, he will ultimately build one-roomed houses. That would settle the problem, I suppose, according to his argument. A previous Minister of Health actually made that proposition, and he lost his seat in Parliament in consequence. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will take note of that fact. As I said, I have never claimed to have followed the housing problem to the extent that other Members of the Committee have done, and if I have made any errors I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman, out of the generosity of his heart, will forgive me at once.
I now come to something in which I am intimately interested, namely, the administration of approved societies. I am sure that I shall carry the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary with me when I say that it would really be a calamity if this huge business of collecting contributions from 15,000,000
people and paying away millions upon millions of money annually by way of benefits were allowed to pass without a word upon its administration in this Committee. I make no apology therefore for saying one or two things upon this issue. I think the right hon. Gentleman created a little humour when he mentioned the work of the regional dental officers; but he was surely wrong in suggesting that insured persons were afraid to go to the regional dental officer because their teeth were going to be extracted. It was nothing of the kind. He knows perfectly well that the duty of the regional dental officer is to examine the work of other dentists and not to extract teeth. I can very well imagine people not going to the dentist because they are afraid to have their teeth extracted. The point at issue, however, might appear to be a very small one, but to approved societies the matter is very important. The right hon. Gentleman has appointed several officers as regional dental officers to cheek the work of the dentists. That is very necessary now that the National Health Insurance Fund has become financially responsible for dental treatment. I am convinced that a few of the dentists, even now, do not play the game with approved societies. Complaints from some quarters are so strong that some of the approved societies are already thinking of diverting some of their surplus funds for use in other directions. So far as I am concerned, I want to say, that if some of the dentists and some of the opticians, do not treat us better I shall make it my business to see whether other additional benefits cannot be established in order to divert the funds from those purposes. I must say, of course, that it is only a small section of the dental and optical profession that I complain about.
When you come to the work of the regional dental officers a very interesting point emerges. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who is conversant with the work of National Health Insurance from its commencement, did not foresee one thing in connection with the appointment of these gentlemen. I am sure I am not doing the right hon. Gentleman any injustice when I also say that he did not foresee the point which I am going to mention. The point is this: The work of the regional dental officers has been made very difficult, and there are already
complaints of delay. I do not see how these delays are to be avoided. The regional medical officer can call a patient to him during the daytime because he is on the sick fund and not at work. But in the case of the insured person who requires dentures, he can only attend in the evening; he is at work during the day. I do not know whether it would be a good suggestion that these regional dental officers should begin their work at six o'clock in the evening and go to bed during the day. I cannot think of any other way out of the difficulty; but the problem is there, and I trust the Department will inquire into it in the near future.
In spite of the fact that the administration of National Health Insurance is carried on with great satisfaction to all concerned, it would, indeed, be a wonderful institution if there were no complaints whatever to make. There is one that I wish to make. Some approved societies are not at all satisfied with the arrangement that has been made whereby a person suffering from anything connected with the eyes is sent automatically by the medical practitioner to the ophthalmic surgeon. I have made remarks concerning the medical profession on more than one occasion in this House, and I have been criticised very severely for doing so; but I do wish to say, in the presence of a member of that profession, that we are not satisfied that the opththalmic surgeon should receive a fee of a guinea for giving advice that ought in some cases to be given at a very much cheaper rate. I am speaking now as a trade union official, too. I think it will destroy the confidence of approved societies in the work of the medical profession if the panel doctor automatically refers an insured person suffering from any defect of the eyes to the ophthalmic surgeon and a fee of a guinea is to be paid to him for his work. I think the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this important business ought to inquire into that complaint.
With regard to additional benefits as a whole, the Minister was quite right when he said that dental benefit as an additional benefit is spreading among the approved societies, that eight times the sum of money was spent after the last valution that was spent during the
previous valuation period; and 12½ times the amount of money is now being spent in respect of ophthalmic benefit. It is not for me to say anything now about ophthalmic benefit in its relation to optical practitioners; but I have to make a complaint in respect of the provision of spectacles. The complaint—I do not know how far it is justified—is that some optical practitioners claim anything from 100 to 300 per cent. profit on the spectacles they sell. I cannot say whether that is true or not, but it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman ought to give some attention to the charges that are being made. Not only should he inquire into the charges made by the ophthalmic surgeon, the dentist, and the optical practitioner, but he would do well to inquire also into the charges made for surgical appliances supplied to members of approved societies, which have increased since that benefit was added to the National Health Insurance Scheme. There is a feeling, and it is a justifiable one, I think, that because this money is available in the funds of approved societies the professions which have anything at all to do with the insured population are taking undue advantage of the position in regard to their charges. It is the duty of the Minister of Health to hold the balance evenly between approved societies and these various professions. I remember full well the dispute the Minister of Health had with regard to the fees of panel doctors, and the arrangements made with the dentists and I am conversant with those now to be made with the optical practitioners. I think he will find that he will have to go a step further and do something in connection with the subject of surgical appliances as well.
Just a word with regard to the new projects which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech. We on this side of the House welcome any new preject with regard to research into diseases with the idea of giving higher and better education, and greater facilities to medical practitioners to improve their knowledge of the health of the community. That is very good work, and I am glad to learn that the Ministry is taking an active interest in the two new institutions. What I want to know is whether the Ministry are backing up these institutions by grants? It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman
to say that these two new institutions have been formed and that the Rockefeller Foundation has given 2,000,000 dollars to one. That is no credit to the Minister at all, and, while we welcome these new projects, we should like to know how far the Ministry of Health itself is interested financially in these two institutions.
The right hon. Gentleman claims, and rightly, a great deal of credit with regard to the benefits payable under the Widows' Pension Scheme, and as far as I understand the method of administration I have no complaint at all to make, except complaints against the law itself. The Department has undoubtedly, as far as it could, cleared up most of the difficulties connected with claims; but I think the time has arrived when the Committee should be informed how far the payments that have already been made on account of widows' pensions and allowances tally with the actuarial calculations given to the House in 1925. We have been given figures as to the number of claims, and the amounts too; but I think we are entitled to know from the Minister how far the amounts that have been paid square with the actuarial calculations.
I want to turn back once again to the National Health Insurance scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary gave a reply some time ago to a question which I put to him—I am sorry I have not the details with me at the moment, but no doubt he will remember the question—as to the amount of sickness benefit paid away during the mining dispute last year. The Parliamentary Secretary led me, at any rate, to believe that because of that industrial dispute sickness claims on approved societies had grown enormously. I ventured to say then that while the claims had increased during that period, I was not so sure that the claims were not less than they would be this year. It is now nearly the end of June, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary should give the figures showing the amounts paid during the first and second half of last year, and probably up to date; and unless the experience of other societies differs from my own, I shall be astonished to learn that the figures of last year are much higher than they are for this year because the claims on the funds of
the societies, in spite of all that is said as to the health of the community being better, do not appear to diminish. The reason is not that which is usually given—namely, that the insured population is malingering. The reason is that if you have an extension of the age the older people get the feebler they become—except members of the Labour party—and, consequently, the claims of the insured population are increasing as the years go by.
There is another question which I think we must put to the Parliamentary Secretary, who I understand is going to reply. He will remember that there has been a reduction of one penny in the contribution of the men and one half-penny in the contribution of the women. It is not competent for me to dwell now upon the very foolish action of the Government in plundering the funds of the approved societies some time ago. I understand it is not in order; but I think we are entitled to know what the result has been on the funds of the approved societies, that is, the taking away of large sums per annum by a reduction in the State grant and a reduction in the weekly contribution of insured persons, men and women. The Ministry of Health has at its command one of the best actuaries in the land, and I feel sure the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us this information now, because the last valuation period ended in 1923 and the next period ends in 1928 for some societies and in 1927 for others.
Can we be informed—and of all the questions I am putting to the Department this afternoon, this is the most important—whether in view of the fact that the State grant has been reduced, and the contribution of insured persons per week has been reduced, the actuary is satisfied that approved societies will be in as good a position at the end of the third valuation period, that is at the end of 1928, as they were at the end of the last valuation period. I know that this is a very difficult subject to broach, because the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary are sincerely hoping that in spite of all they have done in the past approved societies will come out all right in the end, that money will flow in as was the case after the last valuation. It is right that we should know whether, in the opinion of their
actuarial department, approved societies are likely to be as well off at the end of the present valuation period as they were at the end of the last. Let me put it in simpler form. The total amount of surplus available at the end of the last veluation period was £42,000,000. Can we take it that the right hon. Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary and their actuary, are satisfied that at the end of 1927–28 there will be Another £42,000,000 available by way of surplus in the funds of the society? It will be a very interesting answer.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member might just as well ask me who is going to win the fight to-morrow night.

Mr. DAVIES: When the right hon. Gentleman brought in, the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, and the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, he could tell us for 50 years in advance what would be the position of the societies. I have the documents here from the Actuarial Department, and they are able to tell us what is going to happen up to, I think, the year 1975. I am sure that if the hon. Member would do his duty and get the figures from the Actuary he would be able to tell the Committee now whether the Actuary anticipates a £30,000,000. a £40,000,000 or a £50,000,000 surplus at the end of the current valuation period. He knows full well what the result is going to be; and, because the sum is going to be less, he is not going to reply. If the surplus had been £50,000,000 or £60,000,000, in spite of the plundering of the funds of approved societies and the reduced contribution of insured persons, he would have been delighted to have said that the Actuary thinks that the probable sum is £50,000,000 or £60,000,000.
Another very important problem arises in connection with the administration of approved societies. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that some societies have a dwindling membership. Some of us are interested to know what is going to happen to these societies whose surpluses accumulate, whose investments grow from year to year but whose membership continually declines. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to transfer some of these funds to a central pool, or to a contingency fund;
what is going to happen? We are nor entitled to deal with any probable legislation on this very important issue; but I think we should know from the Minister of Health what number of the recommendations of the Royal Commission have been put into operation. I have a list of some of the recommendations which need not wait for legislation, which could be put into operation without passing a Bill through Parliament. I want to know whether anything has been done with the recommendations which do not require legislation.
I feel satisfied that the Committee ought to pay more attention to the work of approved societies than has been the ease hitherto. There are 15,000,000 people involved, and large numbers of them are without any democratic control of any kind. If it were opportune, I should put the other point as to whether these millions of insured population, who have no voice at all, and no means of expressing their opinions through some of the large approved societies, could not be called together somehow in the various localities so that they might express their views on the administration of the funds.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the hon. Member suggest that the trade union member of an approved society shows any more interest than any other member of an approved society?

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member knows full well that in every trade union approved society, branch meetings are held, council meetings are held, and elections are held every year; and that there are millions of members of other approved societies who never have the chance of attending any meeting or taking part in any election. The hon. Member is merely playing with words when he puts that point.
As I said, there are some things in connection with the work of the Ministry of Health which are undoubtedly above political partisanship, but with regard to the subsidy on houses, and the suggested smaller houses, I feel sure that the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman will create considerable alarm among those interested in that problem. With regard to national health insurance, the business is proceeding smoothly, and the work is being performed, as far as I know, by the medical profession as a
whole very well indeed. But I should like really to see the right hon. Gentleman instituting something beyond merely paying away benefits. Something should be done to aid research work. We have surely reached a stage when a sum of money should be made available to carry on research work; and although we welcome the two institutions mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, the day has now come when we should not be satisfied merely with clearing away slums, building new houses, and paying away benefits; but when the health of the community should be the subject of research by the highest and most skilful men in the land.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on the subject of insurance, but I shall only deal with it very briefly, and I do not propose to respond to the suggestion he made that we should take up the question of the fees paid to ophthalmic surgeons. I am in the position of being a friend to a litigant in the Courts, and all I can say is that I trust the case entirely to the Court. I am certain such matters will be rightly arranged between the Ministry of Health on the one side and those who represent the medical profession on the other. I am very glad the hon. Member said that practically the whole of the matters that come under our purview in this Debate are outside party politics. Party questions come in occasionally, but on the whole we are free of party, and we can shake hands in wishing to forward the magnificient work of the Ministry of Health and the organisations under the Ministry throughout the country.
With regard to National Health Insurance, my hon. Friend suggested that something should be done for research. The medical profession would be the first to back up any such plea. I think I am right in saving that in the original insurance scheme there was a penny of the contribution put aside definitely for research, and that was commuted into the payment which has eventuated as the Medical Research Council, now doing magnificent work under the Privy Council. I entirely endorse any proposal for giving more help to that Council or to research generally, but it would be unfair not to mention that that research work arose out of the National
Health Insurance scheme. It is true that we want to look beyond the relief that has been afforded by the insurance scheme. That scheme has provided a most magnificent means of relief in the form of various benefits to the population. But when we come to look at the larger and wiser object which was aimed at specifically in the Act, namely, the prevention of disease, it has to be admitted that the whole insurance scheme has been a dead failure, an absolute failure. It has not resulted in the prevention of disease in any way and it does not tend to the prevention of disease.
It is only in so far as we may be able in future administration to correlate the system of the insurance scheme with that of preventive agencies throughout the country that we can hope for any marked improvement. The pensions for widows and orphans and the aged are among the magnificent new contributions to health, inasmuch as poverty is one of the three essential elements in the causation of ill-health. In so far as one may attribute ill-health to preventable causes, one may say definitely that the three main elements are poverty, ignorance and carelessness. It may be poverty in those who are neither ignorant nor careless; it may be ignorance amongst those who are neither poor nor careless; and it may be pure carelessness among those who are neither poor nor ignorant; but it is quite certain that poverty, grinding poverty, is at the bottom of a large amount of ill-health at the present time. If you can do away with this poverty, for which the individuals are really not responsible, as has been largely done by the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions scheme, you are going a long way towards improving indirectly the health of the community.
I wish to make a few remarks on the present position of the housing problem. From our side we have urged, and to some extent have been joined by all parties inside and outside the House, that in facing the appalling problem of housing after the War, despite the fact of people being intolerably overcrowded, despite the fact that houses that were dilapidated and out of repair were still inhabited, the main and essential thing was to get the building industry back to work, to increase the supply of houses before we could tackle, or while
we were tackling, the other thing. I would like, on behalf of all who are keen on this subject, to offer my small share of congratulation to the Minister of Health for the wonderful way in which he has managed to attain that object with the help of all parties. What is more remarkable is that the building trade has not simply been got back to work on the original plan, but, as the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon, back to work with a production of something like three times the number of houses in a year that were produced before the War. It is a wonderful achievement and one with which we can be heartily satisfied.
That fact is, perhaps, one answer to the question raised by the last speaker, as to the expensive house. When you have a large demand for any product and a small supply, prices naturally go up and you cannot prevent it. The facts here are that you have an ever-increasing demand for housing, and as long as the supply is limited, however great that supply may be, prices are bound to rise. You cannot keep them down except by compulsory and punitive measures. We know there was an idea that we should introduce compulsory and punitive measures to reduce profits. There has never been an idea that we should reduce wages by such methods in the building trade, but there was that idea of reducing profits. It faded away when we were face to face with the effort of trying to arrive at that result. It was impossible to keep profits down where you had so large a demand. The supply is still inadequate. It is true that we have built nearly 900,000 houses in England and Wales alone since the War, and that on the basis of the provision made for the population of 1911 we shall probably arrive at an equal accommodation of the population within the next couple of years. By the middle of 1930, if we build at the present rate, we shall have the population housed on much the same conditions as in 1911, with some improvement.
But what were the conditions in 1911? In England and Wales then we had 3,200,000 persons living in overcrowded conditions, more than two to a room. That condition of overcrowding continues now. According to the 1921
census there were nearly 1,000,000 people in Greater London who were living in overcrowded conditions, more than two to a room. That figure epitomises the awful stories that we constantly read in the surveys of housing that are going on. In Chelsea and Westminster recently very active and well-informed housing associations have issued reports of their surveys. I must say, knowing housing so well in London, that I am surprised that the surveys are not worse. They reveal some appalling conditions in dilapidated houses that are still allowed to be inhabited and have to be inhabited, where two or three families are living in accommodation sufficient for only one. There are cases where two or three families have only one set of conveniences or kitchens. The conditions are appalling and they have to be tackled; they are no less difficult than the task of overcoming the mere lack in the number of houses. We have to take up that question.
If you read the reports of medical officers of health throughout the country you will find that during the last 10 years they have skimmed very lightly over the question of the dilapidated house. Why? Because when they have reported houses as dilapidated and not fit for habitation no action has been taken; the local authority did not dare to take action. So houses have continued to be let when they have been reported as insanitary, and they are still inhabited. I hope that this question of administration will be taken up with increasing energy by the Ministry of Health as the number of houses built becomes more adequate. As we get towards an adequate supply of houses, there should be increasing work in securing the reporting, the closure and the demolition of the disgraceful houses that are still allowed to be inhabited and unfortunately have had to be inhabited hitherto. That is one thing for which I should ask. I suggest also that, whereas the reports of medical officers of health have in the past been extremely voluminous or varied in their size every year, and latterly they have taken to concentrating upon a survey once in every five years, the Ministry of Health should, at least once in every five years, call for a survey by the medical officers throughout the country
not only of the individual areas but also areas grouped together under the county councils—a survey of the housing conditions, showing what is being done in order to meet the differing needs of the housing problem.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has been criticised for speaking of his desire to stimulate especially the building of small houses. I feel sure that I am interpreting rightly the inquiries made by the last speaker, when I say that what he meant was not to diminish the size of any particular house, but that, inasmuch as the subsidy is allowed for houses of different sizes and local authorities generally have two, three or four standards of size, the Minister should concentrate more on those lower standards that are already being built for the working class. A trust with which I am connected is building, very largely owing to the generosity of a gentleman who died 25 years ago, houses for the working classes. When we are deciding on any big scheme for congested areas we have to decide what is the size of house required by the working classes. In some areas we have been told that the houses that we build are too big and that smaller houses are preferred for various reasons. In other areas we have a demand for the middle-sized house. As one surveys the whole problem one must recognise that the subsidy has been too much used for the building of houses for artisans and the better-paid worker, and that there has not been sufficient provision for those who get the pay only of casual labourers and men of that sort. I trust that the Minister will endorse that opinion in his reply. Perhaps the subsidy has gone too much to those who can pay. Anyhow, if continued on the same lines it would still be going into the pockets of those who can well afford, through building societies or other agencies, to build their houses without State help. We want the whole of the funds that are available from public sources for housing purposes to be given only to those who really are in need.
6.0 p.m.
What is being done with regard to that useful little Measure, the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, which enabled grants and loans to be given for the repair of workers' houses in the rural areas? It is limited to houses which are let at low rents and which will continue to be let at low rents
to the working classes, and it should relieve the rural areas of an enormous difficulty. The local authorities have found it impossible to take action in this matter because of the wretched rents that by custom have been paid in the country for these houses—3s., 2s. and, in some cases, even 1s. per week. Of course there are other factors to be considered, but I believe that Act enables local authorities to take strong action. They can insist on houses being either repaired or closed and demolished. They have also power, if there are not enough houses, to build, with the help of the subsidies now available. I hope we shall hear to what extent the county councils are rising to their opportunities in this matter and to what extent they are leaving it to the rural district councils who may apply to be authorities under the Act.
I hope also we shall learn that the Ministry is going to take steps to see that those authorities which have been lax or slack in adopting the Act are brought up to the mark. I hope the county councils will be pressed to do more than they have been doing hitherto on this question. There are many points in regard to which they could do more, owing to recent Acts. There is, for instance, the question of the public utility societies, which are doing so much useful work for the housing of the workers. These societies are always in difficulties with their finance. They require help, and in many cases they are trying to work under small local authorities which have not the power to finance them properly. Indeed, in some cases, these local authorities have financed them, over and above their own rateable value, and it is the county council which should help in this respect. I trust, therefore, the county councils will be urged to take action in this matter. I look forward to hearing two announcements from the Minister. I do not know if it would be in order merely to mention the question of slum clearances. That will require vigorous action before long. We have been promised a further pronouncement on Section 46 of the Housing Act, regarding compensation for slum clearance, which at the present moment, stands in the way of action by local authorities.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): The Minister will not be in order in
giving any exposition of legislation which he may be disposed to introduce. If the hon. and gallant Member asks him whether he has in contemplation dealing with this or that question, he is entitled to reply, but he cannot deal with legislation in this case.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: This is a subject which is concerned both with administration and legislation, and one may ask from the administrative side, to what extent slum clearance schemes are going ahead or may be expected to go ahead in the near future under existing legislation. The other point on which I hope to hear a statement by the Minister is in regard to the Rent Restrictions Act. That question will have to be faced in the near future. The Minister has said he is going to announce his policy before the end of this year. I know the difficulties in connection with the matter, but it is a question which goes to the root of the housing problem, and if it is in the power of the administration to postpone the coming into effect of certain provisions, then it is a matter of the first importance. I will not go further into that subject, but will await another opportunity of discussing it. Any idea that we have come to the end of the housing problem, or even within sight of the end, merely because we have such a fine record as the Minister has put before us to-day, would be grossly misleading, and I hope in all parts of the Committee, we shall continue to take an active part in trying to arrive at a solution of this seemingly interminable problem.

Mr. BRIANT: There is no Ministry which comes so near to the homes of the people as this Ministry. Whether it is dealing with pensions or insurance, with health or with housing, it is essentially a Ministry which ought to be called, indeed, the "Ministry for Home Affairs." It is the Ministry for the home. We were all glad to hear from the Minister his references to research in all matters connected with health. I do not grudge a farthing of that expenditure; indeed, I do not think we spend enough on research, but the fact remains that, however much we spend on research and whatever may be the discoveries of medical science, we can do but little for the health of the community
as long as present housing conditions exist. Anyone who knows the subject at all is aware that bad housing produces disease, and no amount of preventive medicine, no medical knowledge, will prevent the spread of disease with great rapidity as long as bad housing continues. This applies particularly to such diseases as tubercular diseases, which are almost entirely—I will not say entirely—produced by bad conditions of housing. It is not my habit to go to books or reports in order to know the truth. There is hardly a day in my life on which I am not approached with some pathetic story of a man, who has the money to pay for more accommodation, seeking almost in tears for additional rooms and unable to find them. Yesterday, I had a case of six people who were living in two rooms. They included an anæmic boy, who, obviously, will continue to be amæmic as long as he lives in that crowded atmosphere. That lad will grow up with a weakened constitution, and, probably, will be a burden on the community at a later stage of his life. Certainly, he will not be an efficient citizen, and it is idle to talk of many of these subsidiary questions as long as we fail to grapple with the health question. I do not intend to dwell on that proposition, which is self-evident, though I might add that there is no great problem with which social workers have to deal, such as juvenile crime or drink, which cannot be traced back to health.
One must be discursive in dealing with this Vote, because the work of the Ministry is widespread and many questions arise on it. I wish to refer first to the accumulated balances of the approved societies. There are many directions in which I wish to see these accumulations used. Any medical man will support me in the statement that a very large number of women who die at childbirth or who live on with enfeebled constitutions, could be saved from death or ill-health if they had proper medical care and had certificated midwives to attend them. I want to see the time when these balances—and I hope the idea will be favoured by the approved societies and the Minister—can be utilised to make definite provision for proper nursing and care for women in this condition. I believe the saving to the community would he enormous, and
would far outweigh the expenditure of money. Turning to another matter, in my experience a large number of men and women, who have not recovered from the direct effects of illness, return to work before they are fit. Those who know the working class will bear me out when I say that it is the best of the workers who go back most promptly to work.
The good workman sees he cannot live on the money which he receives in benefit, even if his doctor retains him on the list, and he is anxious to get back to work because, during sickness, he has had to use more money than he has been receiving, which means applications for relief, and also that tragic feature of many workers lives, an added number of pawn-tickets showing how the home is being reduced. The better the man, the more anxious is he to get back to work, and thousands of men and women go back to work before they have recovered proper health. Most of us here are fortunate enough to be able to allow ourselves a certain period for recovery, after the acute period of an illness, but many of these people have to resume their occupations before complete recovery. This means enfeebled constitutions, if it does not actually reduce their years of life. I think, in time, some way might be devised by which every worker should have the opportunity of being sent away for at least a month on a doctor's certificate, and by which funds should be provided to keep the family in the condition in which they were kept While the wage-earner was fully employed. It is only in this way that we can give them a chance of that complete recovery which, I am sure, we wish for all those whose circumstances are such as I have related.
I now propose to glance rapidly at two subjects which are quite disconnected. We have heard that there is a committee inquiring into the question of vaccination. I wish at once to make it clear that I am not an opponent of vaccination. As a layman, weighing up the evidence, I have long been convinced that, on the whole, vaccination is a, preventive of smallpox, but I am bound to add that recently there have been some statements which are at least disconcerting, particularly, with regard to the possible connection—I say "possible" connection—between encephalitis and inoculation. I am not
satisfied that we are getting all the facts. May I add, as one who believes in vaccination, that if anything would deter people from vaccination, it is a doubt as to what effects it may produce in their children? I understand that the Andrewes Committee made a report, which is in the hands of some French people, and has been published by them, but has never been submitted to the English public. That report ought to be made public to us as well as to other people. I think we have a right, not merely to wait for the result of the inquiry which is now being held, but to ask for some preliminary report from the committee which is sitting, giving information as to the cases of encephalitis which have occurred within a period of two months after vaccination. I do not wish to disturb the public mind. I am not frightened or startled in the least, but we have a right to know the facts as far as they are presentable to us. We should not necessarily be compelled to wait for the final report of a committee which may take a long time in pursuing its inquiries, while, in the meantime, these statements are disturbing many people and are creating anxiety on this subject.
I turn to still another subject—one in which I have taken a great interest. That is the condition of the workers in the hop districts. I was disturbed when the Minister of Health the other day, in answer to a question, said he saw no reason why the report of his own medical officer should be issued. No such report was issued by the Department, and I think the House of Commons have a right to demand to see the report of the inspector who visited the hopfields. I have visited them and I state frankly that some of the conditions are disgusting and almost beyond belief by those who have not seen them. I believe there has been an improvement, and I say at once I am not including in my statement by any means all the hop growers. Many of them conduct their farms as well as possible, considering the temporary nature of the work, but it is a fact that the hop grower has to get his living through this temporary work. There are not enough workmen in his own district to do the work.
The workers, however, have a right to demand that they should be put into conditions which are tolerable and at least
decent, and I can assure the Committee, from personal knowledge, that that is not the case in many instances. There was drawn up a list of model rules in 1926, I think, and I would like to be told how many of the district councils have adopted those rules, how many put them into force last year, and how many will put them into force this year. I think we might be supplied with the actual reports of what the medical inspectors have seen. I have every reliance on their judgment and knowledge. I have seen reports of local medical officers, and some of them have made statements as to conditions still existing which I am sure no Member of this Committee would sanction for a moment on his own property. I have myself seen a family huddled together in a small hut, without a chair or table, with a straw mattress, and the only place where food could be put was on the dirty straw that was left on the floor and covered with litter by the children running in and out. There was no place for the children to play, and there was nothing but this tiny hut in which to sleep and eat. These matters concern me because from South London there is a migration into Kent every year of some 60,000 people during the four or six weeks of the hop-picking. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some more information on this subject. It is time that the Committee should demand to see the returns I have mentioned; they were issued in the past, and they should be placed in our hands to-day.
I am afraid I have been somewhat discursive, but I take a keen interest in these points. To return to what I said at the beginning, I hope that whatever the Ministry may do in the way of research, it will do it thoroughly. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not spare money in this matter, for if you can save the health of a single person, the community will win that money back in a few years' time, and if you can prevent a person having an illness, it will be repaid over and over again to the general public. The rates and taxes are enormously enhanced by the heavy charge caused by people whom we have neglected when they were curable and allowed to get into an incurable position, when they have become a burden on the State. I have every confidence in the
Minister, who is keen on these subjects himself, and I hope he will give some encouragement to us who feel that health is the greatest service to the community and that the opportunities of the Ministry for good are probably unequalled by those of any other Ministry in the country.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: It was with very great pleasure and admiration that one listened to the speech of the Minister of Health—admiration for the facility with which he travelled from subject to subject, showing great knowledge of each, and giving the Committee very valuable information which had to be more or less contracted, but which justified the opinion which, I am sure, is held on all sides of the House that in the Minister of Health and his Parliamentary Secretary we have a Department which is functioning in the very best possible way. It is, however, surprising that a Department which should be concerned solely with the health of the nation has to spend so much time and opportunity on other subjects, which are perhaps only remotely connected with health. When I found that the Amendment from the Liberal Benches to reduce the Vote was moved in a speech that was practically confined to the very intricate and technical subject of rating, I wondered why in the world the Ministry of Health should be dealing with that question when there are so many vital subjects affecting the health of the community to be discussed. The Minister prophesied last year that the reduction of the housing subsidy was going to reduce the price of houses, and the Labour party then were sceptical on that subject, but I am sure that to-day they are as delighted as we are to find that the Minister was right in his prognostication, and I suggest to them that the next time he prophesies, they should accept his prophecy as a very good tip.
The references of the Minister to public health were very favourable, but one got the impression from his speech that everything was as well as it could be. I do not think that is quite the case. The right hon. Gentleman had to confine his remarks on each subject to such a small compass that it was easy to convey rather a false impression, and I would specifically refer to his remarks on cancer. The impression that he gave me was that the outlook for cancer was very much
better than it had been and that he almost ventured to prophesy that within a more or less reasonable time we should have a cure for that disease. We hope that that is so, but I think it is very much too strong a statement to go forth to the public at the present time. Very good work is being and has been done, but at present I think it must be emphasised again that the only chance for a patient with cancer is early and complete operation, and not to wait for anything that the Minister may have in mind, or for any invention or discovery that may be made in future. The only chance at present is early operation, and I would like to emphasise that to correct perhaps an impression which the Minister did not mean to convey. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question with regard to the post-graduate hospital. Most of the London hospitals and many provincial hospitals have postgraduate students. I do not quite understand how this new hospital will function. I understand that it has been provided by the Rockefeller Foundation, but how will it be kept up? Is it really going to become a State hospital for post-graduate study, not confined to medical men in this country, but open to medical men of all nations? Will a fee be charged to these medical men? That is rather an important point, because one would like to know if it is the beginning of the State control of medicine or of a State medical service, or if it is simply the State helping medical men to provide facilities at a low cost to themselves, because they have those facilities at the present time, provided that they are willing to pay for them, at most of the London and provincial hospitals.
There is one subject to which the Minister referred very slightly, and that is the question of smallpox. I have noticed in reading in OFFICIAL REPORT during the last few months that various questions have been put from various sections of the House with regard to smallpox, and I will give three or four items of information which have appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT. We have found that during the year ended 2nd April last there have been 12,922 cases of smallpox notified in this country; that the deaths registered during the year ended 31st March from smallpox were 33; that this year there have been so far 28 deaths, 21 of unvaccinated people and
seven of people vaccinated in infancy; that in the County of Durham there were 20 cases of smallpox in 1924, 1,138 cases in 1925, and 6,645 cases in 1926. We also found that they have had nine cases in Hendon, of which five were fatal. These answers show that smallpox has been definitely increasing in this country in the last few years, from 2,504 cases in 1923 to 12,922 in the year ended 2nd April, 1927, and with this steady increase of smallpox there has been a steady increase in the death-rate, because we find that in 1914 there were four deaths; in 1915, 13 deaths; in 1916, 18 deaths; then we get down to 1921, five deaths; in 1922 they went up to 27 deaths; in 1923 they went down to seven deaths; in the year ended 31st March there were 33 deaths; and this year so far there have been 28 deaths.
One also found that in 1924 there was an outbreak of smallpox in 148 separate districts in this country. That means that we are gradually but surely advancing towards an epidemic of smallpox, there being increases all over the country both in the number of cases and in the number of deaths. Fortunately, it has been of an exceedingly mild type, but that has made it much more difficult for the local authorities to deal with the earlier cases and to prevent the spread of the disease. I think the Minister of Health has a very definite responsibility in this matter, and I suggest, with great respect, that the Ministry are not adequately carrying out the powers conferred upon them in dealing with this danger. We know that the Minister of Health, by his control over boards of guardians and also over other local authorities in health matters, has a very definite power, both moral and financial. In the year 1924 there were only 47.5 per cent. of successful vaccinations, 37.1 per cent. of conscientious objectors, 5.4 per cent. died unvaccinated, and 0.2 per cent. were insusceptible; and we find that there is a balance of 10 per cent. not accounted for. This 10 per cent. probably consists of children who have escaped the meshes of the vaccination officer.
We may as well put it quite plainly, and I blame the Minister of Health for not seeing that the Vaccination Act is properly carried out. Under the Vaccination Act of 1898, a conscientious objector was given a chance of declaring that he
conscientiously believed that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of his child, but it was made rather difficult, because he had to appear before two justices, or a stipendiary magistrate, or a metropolitan magistrate, and there was a certain amount of difficulty in getting an exemption certificate. The result was that the number of exemptions granted under that Act kept fairly steady, but in 1907 a new Vaccination Act was brought in, which made the conscientious objectors' Clause very much more simple, and all that they had to do was to go before a justice of the peace, a commissioner for oaths, or some officer, authorised to receive a statutory declaration, and make a declaration of conscientious objection to vaccination, and the certificate was given them. The result is that, in 1908, 63.2 per cent. of children were successfully vaccinated, but in 1914 the figure had come down to 44.6 per cent., and in 1922 it was 40.3 per cent. One point to be noted in connection with the statistics is that when small-pox occurred there was a larger number of successful vaccinations but a year or two afterwards people got less frightened and said, "This is a very slight disease; this is a very mild small-pox—some people think it is chicken-pox—and we will not bother."
I would like to say that I entirely disbelieve in these conscientious objections. In very few cases is there a real conscientious objection. I am speaking from my own personal experience. I found very often in the course of my practice that parents would not allow their children to be vaccinated because they said they had a conscientious objection. Later many of those people emigrated to America. America has more sense than we have. America will not allow people to enter that country unless they have been vaccinated, and I never met a single conscientious objector who refused to have his child vaccinated if he wanted to go to America. In a case like that I say it is not a conscientious objection. The reason parents refuse to have their children vaccinated is not because they have a conscientious objection to vaccination, but a parental feeling that they do not want the baby to suffer any pain. If a child is vaccinated the arm is sore for two or three days and the child is fretful
and restless, and parents say, "Why should the child suffer pain? Go and get a certificate; the magistrate is compelled to give it." Thus we have in the country a huge number of unvaccinated people who are an absolute danger to the community.
In a way I do not regret that, because I am convinced that certain people are so bigoted, shall I say, against vaccination that the only thing that will cure them is a big epidemic of small-pox, with a high fatality rate. It is a terrible thing to expect, but, as far as I can see, it is bound to come. The Minister of Health has a duty to perform. It is the law of the land, to see that children are vaccinated unless they are granted exemption; and when he finds from his own statistics that things are not being properly carried out I say it is his bounden duty to put the law into operation and to exert pressure upon boards of guardians and local authorities. I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to some remarks in the report of the Chief Medical Officer of Health for 1925–26:
It is regrettable to have to record that the spread of the disease in the north-east counties was due to some extent to the failure of two sanitary authorities and their medical officers of health to take adequate steps to control the disease within that district.
What has the Minister done about that? Has he taken any action whatever? Have those medical officers of health been spoken to, or reprimanded, or have they been dismissed?
Ono ill-administered district in the Tyne-side area caused the malady to spread into eight other districts in the vicinity.
Has anything been done to that local authority?
Delay in the removal to hospital of a considerable number of cases inevitably led to the spread of the disease from the patients left at home.
These are extracts from the report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the Committee whether the Minister has taken any definite action upon this very serious report? If the medical officers in certain districts are neglecting their work, because that is what it comes to, the Minister of Health, seeing that he pays half the salary of these officers, ought to take steps to regulate the situation
reported to the Department that a certain official has not carried out his work properly, it is the bounden duty of the Ministry to interfere, and either see that an improvement is brought about or that the man is dismissed. I am speaking against my own profession, but no medical man has a right to undertake definite responsibilities affecting the health of the community unless he discharges his duty to the best of his ability. I recognise that in certain cases medical officers have to deal with recalcitrant local authorities or boards of guardians, but a medical officer of health has a definite responsibility to the community, and the Minister of Health has a definite responsibility to Parliament to see that he performs his duties properly.
A few days ago I asked a question about Government lymph and suggested that it should be sold to all practitioners who desire to use it. My reason for doing that is that Government lymph is an exceedingly good lymph, very pure, and undoubtedly the best lymph in the country. It is a very successful lymph, because in 1924 there was a case-success of 99 per cent. with primary vaccinations, which is a very high percentage. My experience in practice was that it was impossible to get lymph from any firm which was comparable in any degree to the Government lymph. If you had vaccinated a child and the result was unsuccessful, you said the child was not susceptible to vaccination; perhaps you persuaded the mother to allow a second or third vaccination, and still the child appeared to be not susceptible, and that created a sense of false security both in the doctor and in the mother. Later I was appointed a public vaccinator, and I started to use Government lymph. I got magnificent results with all my public cases, practically speaking never having a failure. In a very short time I found my private patients coming to me and saving they would rather be vaccinated with Government lymph. I told them that if that were done, they might have to allow the child to be inspected later on by a Government Inspector. They said, "We do not mind that in the least," and before I retired from practice every one of my vaccination patients was being vaccinated with Government lymph. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nationalisation!"] It was not nationalisation. I had absolute faith
in that lymph. I felt perfectly certain if I vaccinated a child with that lymph and it did not "take," that the child was not susceptible, and it was the only time I was confident.
Why should not other doctors have the same opportunity of using Government lymph? Over and over again patients were sent to me by other doctors, who said, "We cannot get Government lymph; we have not any confidence in the lymph we are getting; will you be good enough to vaccinate the patient?" It was my duty to do so, and I was only too pleased to do it, and I would suggest to the Minister, now that he is back in his place, that it would be a very useful thing to allow any medical man in the country who desires to do so to purchase Government lymph. The sense of security, both to the doctors and the patients, would be well worth it. In addition to that, the Department would probably make a very great profit. When going over Mill Hill Hospital a month or two ago, I found they made absolutely all their own vaccines and sera, and they made a profit of nearly £7,000 a year by supplying the Services. In view of the danger which overshadows this country of an epidemic of small-pox, which may be virulent in character, with a very high death rate, it is the duty of the Minister of Health to do all he can to prepare for the emergency by getting people vaccinated now, and not put the question off, as I suggest he is doing by the appointment of a Committee on Vaccination.
The Government will reply that they must await the Report of this Committee. I say that is a false position to take up. Smallpox is in the country—it is spreading throughout the country, and before that Committee reports we may have a very serious epidemic. No one knows when we are going to have it. A serious type of smallpox may break out tomorrow, and I would respectfully urge the Minister of Health to reconsider the question of allowing Government lymph to be supplied to private practitioners upon payment, because I am absolutely convinced that it is the best lymph in the country, and in practically every case where it is used it is successful. [HON. MEMBERS: "Socialism!"] That is not Socialism at all; it is simply common sense, when practical experience has proved that it is a good remedy. Vaccination
is the only remedy for smallpox. It has the overwhelming support of the medical profession throughout the world. We show ourselves the weakest country in the world in allowing conscientious objections. It is not found in other countries, and the sooner the people of this country realise that under strict antiseptic precautions there is practically no danger in vaccination, but that, on the contrary, vaccination will prevent smallpox, we shall get back to the happy stage which we had reached some years ago, when smallpox was practically wiped out from this country, as it has been from so many other countries. I hope the Minister of Health will use all the powers the law has given him to see that the population of this country is efficiently vaccinated, Which they are not at the present time.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I feel a great temptation to refer to many of the subjects which have been raised in this Debate. I should like to have spoken on housing, which was dealt with so well by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), but as a Scotsman I do not like to interfere in the housing affairs of England. I would only say that from his remarks it is quite evident that, in England and Wales, as certainly in Scotland, there is no room for complacency about the housing situation. I was very glad indeed to hear him emphasise the point that the position is still very serious. I should like also to have spoken on vaccination, a topic which was interestingly treated by my colleague the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies). He did not like the suggestion that he was emphasising the principles of Socialism, and said it was not Socialism but common sense. The two things are exactly the same.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member can enlarge upon that topic.

Dr. SHIELS: I was going to take advantage of the opportunity to say that when it comes to matters of health, and other questions of vital importance in peace or war, we as a country, whatever Government may be in power, take things out of the hands of private enterprise in order to see that they are well done. However, I shall not rub in that point,
because I want to take advantage of the quiet and peaceful atmosphere of the Committee to bring forward another subject which has been recently engaging the attention of the Ministry. Before I leave the subject of vaccination, however, may I observe that while I think it is true to say that the medical profession as a whole still believes very strongly in the efficacy of vaccination, I also think that there is some change of opinion in regard to infant vaccination. I have come to the conclusion, seriously, that the time is ripe for another inquiry into the subject of vaccination law. In some respects there is considerable laxity, enforcement is not easy, and I think most medical men will welcome another impartial inquiry so that we may get the vaccination laws put upon a modern and proper footing.
The special subject to which I wish to draw attention is that of the rheumatic child. This matter has been an anxiety to the medical profession for many years and recently active steps have been taken to grapple with the problem. The British Medical Association set up an expert committee in 1924, and this committee has issued two reports, one last year and one this year. The Medical Research Council has also been studying this subject, and has investigated the conditions among rheumatic children in London and Glasgow, and that Council has also published an interesting report. Sir George Newman and many medical officers of health have repeatedly called attention to the ravages of this disease and to its very important social and economic effects. Broadly, the facts are that acute rheumatism or rheumatic fever in children is followed in a large number of cases by heart disease, which if it does not end fatally. may leave the child more or less incapacitated for the ordinary occupations of life. While there are no figures covering the whole country, it has been shown that in particular areas 10 to 15 per cent. of the children at 12 years of age are affected by rheumatism. Therefore, the number in the country as a whole must be considerable, and the consequent suffering to individuals and the economic loss to the country from the inability of many of these children to support themselves afterwards must be very great.
It is a tragic spectacle to see these children come to adolescence, carry on
at ordinary work and then break down and have to go into hospital. From hospital they go back to work again, and the same process is repeated, and unless they are fortunate enough to get a very long rest or have a very light occupation, this ends in early death. The prevention of the disease is, of course, of the first importance. Unfortunately, the specific organism has not yet been discovered. Frequently the condition is associated with sore throat, adenoids and enlarged tonsils, and ample facilities for the treatment of these conditions are very desirable. It seems to be the case that environment has the main effect in this disease. It rarely attacks the children of the well-to-do, and its incidence is almost entirely on poor children. The very poorest children, strange to say, do not suffer nearly so much as the class immediately above, probably because in the very humblest sections of the population there is a very drastic system of survival of the fittest, and those who do survive have a great capacity of resistance.
There is no single feature of the environment which one can say is really the main cause of the disease. The question of housing, especially of the dampness of houses, school conditions, and many other things have been investigated, but there has been nothing very definite discovered in regard to the particular items of environment. There is also no convincing evidence of heredity in connection with this disease, the similarity of environment and contagion probably accounting for the cases which appear to suggest heredity as a factor. I trust the Minister will encourage, as I know he has already done, the Medical Research Council to go forward with research into this disease, for until we discover the specific cause we shall not be able to have effective prevention, which is what we most seek. Until we have that prevention we must make all necessary arrangements for dealing with those who actually have the disease.
Not only are medical men and those bodies I have mentioned taking a keen interest in this matter, but I am glad to notice that London is giving a very good lead to the country. I think it is to the credit of the London County Council and the Metropolitan Asylums Board that they have given this lead
to the whole country by the provision of special hospital accommodation for cases of acute rheumatism. The London County Council, when deciding this matter, had 1,500 cases of children absent from school on account of these rheumatic conditions. They had conferences with the Metropolitan Asylums Board and the Ministry of Health, and the latter first sanctioned the provision of 60 beds, then 16, and I understand that 350 more are at present being arranged for at Carshalton. It is estimated that no less than 10,000 children in London are suffering from these conditions, and that implies 25 per cent. of chronic invalidity. Surely it is only humane and wise to deal with this matter as the London County Council are dealing with it. This disease can only be effectively dealt with by establishing such special rest homes as they are setting up. For the interesting thing about this condition is that when it arises, if sufficient rest is available and the child is not hurried back into activity prematurely, there is an excellent chance of its escaping the development of heart disease and the consequent permanent incapacity.
While this is the position in London, I would like to ask the Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Secretary what is the position in the provinces? Are the local authorities being urged to provide similar treatment? Because this problem exists in every town and every village throughout the country. We know that many local authorities have not the facilities or the accommodation except in connection with isolation hospitals which are not particularly suitable for this purpose. Many of them have no money to spend in providing new accommodation, and a large number of these cases have to be treated throughout the provinces in voluntary hospitals, either those for sick children or general hospitals. A few years ago the Ministry granted £500,000 to voluntary hospitals. While we await some satisfactory method of dealing with voluntary hospitals, I would like to know if the Minister of Health has considered, or would he be prepared to consider, the giving of a grant earmarked for these cases to enable the provincial hospitals to provide extra accommodation of this special kind.
I know it is a rather depressing thing for him to ask the Minister of Health to provide more money, but I do know
that he is interested in this matter and that he has co-operated very cordially with the London authorities in providing accommodation for these cases, and I am anxious that he should extend that encouragement and assistance to other parts of the country which are equally in need of it. It cannot be too often emphasised that the percentage of cases developing heart disease can be greatly reduced. There are good authorities who declare that at present 50 per cent. of cases of acute rheumatism in children develop heart disease, and that must be greatly brought down. Another suggestion has been made that this disease should be made notifiable. It is well known that in all matters of research, statistics are most important, and these particulars are difficult to get unless the diseases are notifiable. Hospitals also should arrange with local medical practitioners for the after care of these children when they leave hospital. The children leave the hospital and are better for a time, but they are often allowed to indulge in activities which do them great harm, and which medical after care would prevent.
7.0 p.m.
I should like to see this subject linked up with that of the orthopedic treatment of children. I know that in this matter also the Minister of Health has been co-operating with county and county borough authorities. The treatment of orthopædic cases is that of those who are externally disabled while the acute rheumatic children are correspondingly internally disabled. These two questions are of great importance not only from the humane point of view, but also from the economic point of view, and it is gratifying to think that here humane and economic considerations do not clash. It has been estimated by the best orthopædic authorities—we must pay in passing a tribute to Sir Robert Jones for the work he has done on this subject—that 85 per cent. of these disabled children, many of whom are put into cripples' homes and stay there all their lives or languish at home, a burden to themselves and to the community, could be rendered capable of self-support if taken in hand soon enough, and given the wonderful surgical treatment which is now available from orthopædic surgeons. I am grateful for what has already been done, but it is still very little, and I ask the Minister of Health
to extend his activities and his stimulation to other parts of the country. I would like to say a word in regard to the matter of maternal mortality about which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) spoke this afternoon. We have recently passed, both for England and Scotland, a Maternity Homes and Midwives Bill which we hope will be of some assistance in the reduction of this mortality. It is certainly a very difficult problem, and it is not altogether easy to understand why the figures remain as they do. I think we must agree however that the pre-natal condition of the mother has a great deal to do not only with maternal mortality but with infantile mortality. The largest individual causes of infantile mortality are premature birth and congenital debility. The child is born too soon, or in such a weak condition that it cannot survive the contact with its new environment, and it follows, in that case, that the mother's condition has probably been unsatisfactory. Greater attention to the ante-natal condition of the mother and especially to seeing that she has adequate nourishment, would almost certainly help to diminish maternal mortality. We must do something to improve the figures, as they are a great reflection on us. We have managed to reduce considerably practically all other mortality figures, and it is unfortunate that on this one point we seem to have failed. We have not yet got the whole reasons, although we know of many of the contributory causes.
In regard to cancer, about which the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) as well as the Minister, spoke, I should like to ask the Minister what he thinks about the question of publicity. The hon. Member pointed out, as the Minister has done before, that cancer, in the very large majority of cases, is perfectly curable if it is surgically treated at an early stage. People, however, became frightened at the idea that they have cancer, refuse to see a doctor, and in the end are taken in hand when it is too late to do anything effective. Some local authorities in this country—and in America this has been done to a very great extent—have launched a publicity campaign. They have pointed out to their citizens the early symptoms of cancer, telling them in simple language what are the first signs and emphasising the ease with
which a cure can be secured if early treatment is sought. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies, or the Minister, if the Ministry has ever considered this point, and if they have ever thought of urging local authorities to give this information. Some people say it would spread a fear of cancer, and do more harm than good, but that is not the belief of the surgeons or of the people who are most in contact with this disease, and it has not been the experience of the local authorities when it has been tried. I do think that when you have the facts that early treatment is so satisfactory and that any number of people are not coming for treatment because they do not know that, it is obviously a case for publicity and I would like the Minister to consider that.
I was very glad to hear the Minister's reference to the international aspect of medicine and to the League of Nations, and I was very glad to hear about the new hospital which—although gifted by some of our cousins across the sea—we gather is to be maintained by the State. The hon. Member for Royton was anxious about that. But it only shows that no Government, of whatever colour, in this country can go on without having to approximate to some extent at least to our position. It is very desirable that we should make, as we are able to make and as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out we have made, a good contribution to the international common pool of health activity at Geneva. There we have, amidst all the other rivalries of nations and the sordid competitions of the different peoples, this nobler rivalry and competition—the rivalry to contribute the most possible to the universal store of the knowledge of the laws of health.

Mr. HARRIS: We have just listened to a very interesting speech raising very important matters dealing with the Ministry of Health. We have to remember that the Ministry was created out of the Local Government Board in order to accentuate the importance of health. It is quite right that medical problems should be brought before the Committee, but, after all, very much of the disease in this country—and the Minister of Health would be the first to admit it—is caused by unhealthy conditions and environment. I was very glad that the Minister took the opportunity to emphasise the importance
of housing. I want, before the Parliamentary Secretary replies, to switch the mind of the Committee back for a few minutes to housing. Fortunately, I think I can say, without much fear of contradiction, that housing is becoming more and more a non-party question. We are all agreed as to its importance, and as to the evils of overcrowding, its demoralising effects, and the need for a forward policy on the part of every Government. Every Government and party have tried their hand in legislation. At the present time we are in the serious danger of being too satisfied. The danger is largely caused by the fact that at the moment there is considerable progress being made in building. The building that has been done by all agencies is better than for some years past, and, of course, that particularly applies to private enterprise. That might have the effect of lulling the country, the Government and the local authorities into inactivity, and nothing could be more disastrous than that.
It is just as well to recognize—and the Minister will confirm this—that certain local authorities in various parts of the country have more than fulfilled their duty. They have had a housing programme on a large scale, and have made preparations years in advance, bought land and established a staff on such a scale that we can say they are doing their duty. But the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that, while some are more than doing their duty, others are still lagging behind. What I suggest to the Minister is that, while it is his duty and responsibility by all means to praise and to bless those local authorities who are carrying out their functions under the various Acts of 1923, 1924, his own Act and Dr. Addison's Act, which is now practically dead, and the Wheatley Act, he should stimulate and egg on all those who are failing in their duty.
I am not going to attempt to deal with areas outside London, because London itself is quite a problem on its own. Greater London, with a population of 7,250,000, does present a problem that is a serious one quite worthy of the attention of this Committee. Here you have in London an example which is typical of the rest of the country. Some of the local authorities are very active, and others are very much behind. I
want frankly to pay a tribute to my old authority, the London County Council, and I can say that with the greatest frankness and sincerity because I belong to the Opposition side. It has been my business to criticise, and the majority is that of which the right hon. Gentleman is so distinguished an ornament. There is a Conservative majority and I want to be fair. It is largely due to the energy, activity and imagination of the present chairman, whose distinguished predecessor is sitting opposite, and who did his share and who would be the first to recognise that Colonel Levita has more than consecrated his work and has done his part on the London County Council. Even its severest critics will say that the council has done more than its share in trying to solve the housing problem, both by building houses and to some extent by slum clearances, though in the latter respect we have still much leeway to make up. But while the London County Council have done their part, the other local authorities in the county, outside the London County Council, have largely gone to sleep. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will tell us what he is doing to stimulate the other authorities into activity. Is he just praising and blessing the London County Council for doing their job, or is he doing anything to stimulate other agencies to do their share?
In 1922 the peak load was reached in activity. That was the time when the Addison Act was in full blast before the economy machinery had been set to work, and there you had, not merely the London County Council producing some 5,000 houses in that year, but the local authorities in London and the borough councils and county councils producing 2,000 houses, and the outer authorities 4,000 houses. In 1926—and I have the figures pretty well up to date—the London County Council reached the peak load of 4,600 houses, but the other local authorities in London, the borough councils and the corporations—and I complain particularly about the City Corporation and the city of Westminster—through apathy and inertia sank down, as compared with 2,000 In 1926, to a figure of 900, while the outer authorities, the great dormitories and
those outer districts which are rapidly developing and which have still plenty of land, sank from 4,000 to 2,700. These figures are really worse than they actually look, because some few of the districts are showing great activity, while others are doing practically nothing at all. Here at our very door the wealthy city of Westminster, second in wealth to almost no part of London, has practically done nothing. There have been certain revelations, and there was a revelation in the "Spectator" this week, showing the terrible housing conditions in the city of Westminster. I know it will be argued, with some reason, that land is so valuable that you cannot afford to use land for housing purposes, but while land is valuable the assessable value is high, and the produce of a penny rare is great. I maintain, therefore, that the corporation can well afford to deal with their own slums and make proper provision for housing in their area, at any rate to some extent.
About my own district of Bethnal Green, I can speak with some freedom, as I do not support the majority on the council. They have done their share and built all they could, and though they have been faced with the same difficulty in finding land, wherever there happened to be a quarter of an acre or a piece of land, they have taken the opportunity to build houses. The City of Westminster ought to be doing something of that kind, and even the great City Corporation might be doing something to make its contribution. This problem will only be solved by every organisation and every agency pulling its weight. I know that the anxiety of some of these rich districts is that private enterprise—

Whereupon, the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, the Chairman left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Government of India (Indian Navy) Act, 1927.
2. Pacific Cable Act, 1927.
481
3. Mercantile Marine Memorial Act, 1927.
4. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1927.
5. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1927.
6. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1927.
7. Provisional Order (Marriages) Act, 1927.
8. Great Indian Peninsula Railway Annuities Act, 1927.
9. Reading Gas Act, 1927.
10. Farnham Gas and Electricity Act, 1927.
11. Chelsea Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions) Act, 1927.
12. Commercial Gas Act, 1927.
13. Great Western Railway Act, 1927.
14. Southern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Act, 1927.
15. Frimley and Farnborough District Water Act, 1927.
16. Bury Corporation Act, 1927.
17. North British and Mercantile Insurance Company, Limited, Act, 1927.
18. Scottish Provident Institution Act, 1927.
19. London, Midland and Scottish Railway Act, 1927.
20. Matlocks Urban District Council Act, 1927.
21. Stoke-on-Trent Corporation (Gas) Act, 1927.
22. North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Act, 1927.
23. War Risks Associations (Distribution of Reserve Funds) Act, 1927.
24. Barnsley Corporation (Water) Act, 1927.
25. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1927.
26. Southern Railway Act, 1927.
27. West Bridgford Urban District Council Act, 1927.
28. Yorkshire Electric Power Act, 1927.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR in the Chair.]

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £12,943,493, be granted for the said Service."

Mr. HARRIS: When our proceedings were interrupted, I was calling attention to the fact that many local authorities are justifying their inaction in the great London area by the revival of the building of houses by private enterprise. I am one of those who like to see every possible agency at work, but I think it would be most unfortunate for anyone to run away with the idea that the kind of houses being built by private enterprise are really doing much to solve the housing problem. At the present time almost every house built by private enterprise is built for sale, and not for letting, and, therefore, comes right outside the means of the ordinary working man; and, while before the War some 75 per cent. of these houses were occupied by people coming within the definition of the working class, now, to use the words of the Report presented to the London County Council only yesterday, considerably less than one-half, instead of the estimated required proportion of three-fourths, are houses suitable for the working classes. When we come down to the bed-rock of the work done by the London County Council and private enterprise and various agencies, it is pointed out by the county council that there is still a shortage of 52,000 houses to be met. That means that overcrowding is still rampant and that in spite of all our efforts things are not very much improved. It is pointed out by the county council that the number of families has had to be met by closer occupation of houses by more than one family.
We have to recognise facts and to continue our activities. A great promise was held out by the Government 18 months ago that the housing problem could be dealt with by alternative methods of construction. We have had experience of these alternative methods of construction, and perhaps the Minister can give us some guidance. We have made a great attempt to experiment in steel houses. We in London placed orders for almost every kind of steel house. We have been broad-minded; we have had no prejudice and have not been influenced by any desire except that of providing houses to meet the shortage. We have ordered Atholl houses and every other kind of steel house. I have to admit that these houses have not been forthcoming. I believe I am right in saving that up to a few weeks ago not
a single Atholl house had been delivered. Every steel house that we have put up, in almost every case, has been a disappointment. We have experimented with every kind of wooden house—Norwegian, Swedish, English, Canadian, but they have proved to be more expensive and far less satisfactory than the ordinary house. Experiments have been made with all sorts of concrete houses, but after every kind of experiment has been tried we have been compelled to recognise in London that the best house to build is the brick house and the brick and plaster house.
Unfortunately, the agencies for building the brick and the brick and plaster house have been held up through the shortage of skilled labour. It is no use trying to run away from facts; we have to face them. If we are to meet the shortage in all the agencies that are required for the building of houses, we must get the necessary skilled labour. The shortage of bricklayers is not so serious as it was, although we could do with a great many more; but when we come to plasterers the famine is rampant. Even if more brick houses could be built, the difficulty of getting the necessary skilled plasterers remains a living fact. That is a question which, sooner or later, will have to be faced by some Government or some Department. I have said on many occasions that I do not believe we shall get the necessary skilled labour until the Government have a policy which they are determined to carry out over a period of years. I have suggested 15 years. Whatever the period fixed, it must be fixed, and it must have Government backing. Once we fix the period the Government will have a right to go to the trade unions concerned and demand that the necessary skilled labour shall be trained. The skilled labour is not forthcoming.

Mr. MONTAGUE: It is not the fault of the trade unions.

Mr. HARRIS: The hon. Member says that the trade unions are not making the difficulty. I do not believe they will if they can be certain that they will have permanent employment for a period of years. If we had a programme for 15 years the uncertainty would be removed. It is that uncertainty and the constant fluctuation in policy which have prevented
the necessary skilled labour being provided to make up the shortage. It is admitted that a shortage exists. In many cases there have been experiments in substitutes for our present building methods. The substitutes for plastering have always been a failure, but, even if they were practicable, we must get the necessary skilled labour, and that can only be done by good will and pressure on the Government, through the Minister of Health. Many people run away from this question. If we are really in earnest to provide the necessary houses then, surely, the necessary skilled labour must be found. If we get the skilled labour it will mean not only more employment in the building industry, but employment for thousands of other men who are depending for employment upon the skilled trades. I should have liked to elaborate that point, but I have exceeded my time. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, who is never lacking in courage, will tell us his views and whether there is any prospect in the immediate future of the shortage in one or two branches of skilled labour in house building being made good, because it is only by the shortage being met that we can hope to make up for the shortage of houses.

Sir K. WOOD: There is one preliminary observation that I desire to make before dealing with the general questions. The Committee will remember that in his opening speech my right hon. Friend dealt with a statement which had been made by the hon. Member for the Stratford Division of West Ham (Mr. Groves) regarding the attacks on the newly-appointed West Ham Board of Guardians. My right hon. Friend made a complete statement as far as the allegations were concerned which were made the other night, and I have received a message from the hon. Member, which I promised that I would convey to the Committee, that he desires, after having heard the statement of my right hon. Friend, further to investigate the facts, and that he will in that event propose to deal with the matter on a suitable opportunity, which may possibly be afforded to him next week. My right hon. Friend and mys0elf would welcome every investigation of the facts by the hon. Member, and I quite understand his desire to do so before he makes a further statement on the matter.
My right hon. Friend may congratulate himself upon the reception of his Estimates to-day. Anyone who has listened to the Debate will agree with me when I say that, beyond a certain number of important but minor criticisms, some of a very technical kind, there have been practically no major or important criticisms concerning the administration of the Ministry of Health during the past year. I expected to see present this afternoon the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), because in the country he has been taking up a very different attitude from that taken by his supporters this afternoon. I was hoping that he would have given my right hon. Friend and myself an opportunity of replying to some of the statements he has made. On the 13th June, speaking at a Liberal demonstration in the Alexandra Theatre, Stoke Newington, the right hon. Gentleman said:
There had been an increase of unnecessary armaments and by that means a piling up of the burdens of taxation, whilst at the same time they (the Government) had diminished national expenditure on real developments.
He instanced the developments on health. One does not expect particular accuracy from the right hon. Gentleman as far as figures are concerned; but I think that anyone who has given even a cursory glance to the Estimates of my right hon. Friend's Department must see that a more unfounded statement could not possibly have been made. If hon. Members look at almost any branch of the very many matters which have to be administered by the Minister of Health, they will see that the health services of the country are being well maintained and that increased provision is being made by the State as far as the most important services are concerned. For instance, in connection with housing grants there is an additional expenditure of £965,000 a year. In regard to health insurance grants and miscellaneous grants, mainly of a public health character, and various matters of that kind, there have been increased contributions. Therefore, it is a matter of regret to me that statements should be made on a public platform when there is no foundation for them, and that this afternoon when we have a Liberal Motion, and a Liberal Member making a certain
amount of criticism of a perfectly proper character, we should have no suggestions made such as those made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs; suggestions which could not possibly be made in this House.
I shall not be in a position, having regard to my anxiety to fall in with the arrangements made to deal with other subjects which the Liberal party desire to raise at a later stage, to deal with every question that has been brought forward to-day. I suppose no Department in the State has such a variety of business to deal with as the Ministry of Health as will be seen from the questions brought forward to-day. I will do my best to give a reply in the short time that is allowed to me. I will deal, first, with the criticism made in the very moderate, able and admirable speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow West (Mr. Crawfurd), who moved a reduction of the Vote. He raised, first, the question of the operations of the Central Valuation Committee in relation to the Rating and Valuation Act, and made some criticisms in regard to the action of my right hon. Friend and his Department in connection with the work of that Committee. His first complaint was that the action which the Central Valuation Committee had taken and the action which had been taken subsequently by my right hon. Friend was wholly wrong, and that my right hon. Friend had misconceived the position altogether, because, in putting into operation such matters, he should have proceeded by way of a scheme, and that scheme should have been laid before the House and have received the approval and sanction of the House. He suggested that my right hon. Friend was attempting by some backdoor means to avoid the operation of Section 57 of the Rating and Valuation Act. Section 57 says:
For the purpose of promoting uniformity in valuation there shall be constituted in accordance with a scheme to be made by the Minister after consultation with the local authorities … a Central Valuation Committee, consisting of members of rating authorities. …
as enumerated in the Section. Therefore, the only thing which has to take the form of a scheme is the constitution of the Central Valuation Committee. That has been done. There is no provision in this Section for making the
matters about which the hon. Member complained the subject of any other scheme. To a very large extent that disposes of the major criticism made by the hon. Member, but he went further and said that this Committee is exceeding its functions, and that the Minister has improperly endorsed decisions of the Committee. In the first place, this Committee—and a very valuable Committee it Is—is composed of the representatives of local authorities. Of the 32 members of the Committee, 26 are members of local authorities, and 24 of them have been appointed by the representative associations. The remainder are experienced local government officials. Only one official is from the Ministry of Health, and he is the Statistical Officer. The powers of this Committee are advisory only. If the hon. Member will look at the Act he will see that neither the Committee nor the Minister can give directions to the local authorities or assessment committees who are responsible for the preparation and revision of the valuation lists.
What, in fact, has happened is that the Committee have considered a number of matters and have submitted to the Ministry representations designed to promote uniformity—I should have thought a very proper object indeed. The Minister, in his turn, felt that he was not in a position to criticise the recommendations made by this responsible body, many of which are of a technical character, so he did what it was his duty to do and brought them to the notice of the local authorities. After all we must, as I believe we can, treat local authorities as responsible people, containing many educated members undoubtedly, and no one who carefully reads the Report of the Central Valuation Committee and the document that has been circulated to local authorities, could for a moment contend that the advice given by the Committee could be anything in the nature of a direction. So that my right hon. Friend has done nothing more than circulate a number of these recommendations to local authorities.
In the letter addressed to local authorities enclosing this document my right hon. Friend said most specifically that it consisted of a series of representations made by the Central Valuation Committee
under Section 57 and that they were circulated to them in the form in which they were submitted to him. I do not think anything could be much clearer or more definite. So far from belittling the work of the Central Valuation Committee, if the hon. Member went to responsible representatives of the great majority of the local authorities up and down the country, they would say their work had been most valuable and their recommendations have been very gratefully received. Local authorities are very carefully advised in all they do, and when they receive these representations they adopt them or not as they think fit. The matter rests with them, and when they take certain steps it is on their own decision and, right or wrong, that is our system of representative municipal government.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the courteous way he has dealt with the case, but the main point I wished to bring to bear was that these recommendations contained at the bottom of page 24 are contrary to the spirit of the Act of 1925, in so far as they encourage the valuation authority to take up an attitude rather than imposing its will upon rating authorities.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not agree with that. Directly I hear anyone allege that something is contrary to the spirit of an Act of Parliament I am always very careful, because I know that means that at any rate the letter is not being disobeyed. I also know that on the question of the spirit of an Act of Parliament we all have our own differing views, and the law lays down very clearly that we have to deal with what the Act of Parliament says and what it means. I do not for a moment agree that either in the spirit or in the letter the Central Valuation Committee has, in any way, gone outside its proper functions.
The hon. Member raised the question of the panel of referees and complained of its composition. When I tell him how it was arrived at, I think he will agree that a very fair system has been adopted in order to get independent and expert officers. The panel of referees is appointed by the Lord Chief Justice from names submitted to him by the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Surveyors' Institution. There are 39 people on this
panel from which those concerned with this part of the administration of the Act can make their choice. Something more is done in order to make the matter perfectly fair. If any of the parties concerned cannot agree upon one of the 39 under the rules made by the Lord Chief Justice they can go to the Lord Chief Justice and say, "Please select one of these persons from the list." I cannot, and I doubt whether the hon. Member can, think of a system that is fairer or more likely to get an independent body to deal with what, I agree, is a very difficult matter. I hope he will feel that on these two matters I have endeavoured to give him a reasonable explanation and one which has justified the procedure adopted by my right hon. Friend.
A matter of greater importance which has been raised is the question of housing, which my right hon. Friend dealt with so fully, and I think to the general satisfaction of the Committee. I have heard the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) many times, and I often wonder whether if we had as many skilled labourers as the number of speeches he has made on the subject, we should advance faster still with our housing activities. I know it will cheer him up to know that apart from the 217,000 houses erected during the 12 months ended 31st March last—a world record, greater than has been achieved by any other country—arrangements have been definitely made for 160,000 new houses which were either under construction or definitely arranged for on 1st June. Therefore there is no reason why anyone should have any anxiety that the number of houses for the approaching year will be any less than the number for the last 12 months, and when the hon. Member can bring forward a practical plan for increasing that augmentation, in black and white and not in general phrases it will receive my right hon. Friend's most careful consideration. It is not speeches that build houses.

Mr. HARRIS: I was suggesting a greater supply of skilled labour, especially plasterers, of whom there is a great shortage.

Sir K. WOOD: When the hon. Member said he wanted more skilled labour, he said one of the methods to obtain it was to approach the building unions and demand it from them. I would advise him
to consult the leader of his party, who will tell him that efforts have been made in that direction. I think he can be well content to leave the matter there. Everyone must appreciate the need of continuing our efforts. Not a word has been said by my right hon. Friend or myself that we are not fully alive to that side of the situation. We agree that this great progress must be maintained and, if possible, exceeded, but I do not think this is the occasion for carping criticism, if no real practical suggestions are made to assist us in our task.
My right hon. Friend made a statement with regard to the necessity of obtaining houses at lower cost and, if possible, at a lower rent, and he made two suggestions which, I think, will commend themselves to anyone who endeavours to bring a practical mind to this problem. In the first place, he said the subsidy should be reduced, and that is one of the best ways of getting cheaper houses. That, undoubtedly, has been proved to be perfectly true. My experience is that the higher the subsidy the higher has been the cost of the house. In the days of Dr. Addison, for whom there is a good deal to be said, when the largest subsidy was given you had the highest prices. They went sky high—£1,200 and £1,300 a piece. To-day we are starting on a policy of a gradual reduction of the subsidy, and that is undoubtedly one of the means which should be pursued to get cheaper houses. Subsidies are just as vicious in connection with housing as with any other industry.
A matter which has, perhaps, provoked a certain amount of criticism is the suggestion my right hon. Friend made in regard to smaller houses. In considering this matter you ought to compare the conditions in which so many people are unfortunately living to-day with the proposals my right hon. Friend is making. I think this can be said by way of criticism of the present position of the housing situation, that a great deal has been done at a great deal of cost for the middle classes, what we might call the superior artisan, and, if you like, the smaller professional people. But the great problem that undoubtedly concerns anyone who gives serious attention to housing is the fact that we are not getting houses built at such rents as would permit them to be occupied by people with very small wages. When an hon.
Member opposite criticises the suggestion of smaller houses, it would be a thousand times better for these people to come out of the dreadful conditions under which they are living to-day, some in slums, and go into smaller houses with much better amenities, because the houses built by local authorities have an ample lay-out and open spaces, and it is ridiculous to condemn these people to live in bad conditions, or in slums, because we take the attitude that they must live in larger houses than they can afford. Any practical person who approaches the subject must come to the conclusion that that, at any rate, is not an improper step, and it would be of great benefit to the health of very many people to-day who are living, undoubtedly, in unsatisfactory conditions because of the high rent that has to be paid, and because there is no other practical alternative by which rents can be reduced.
8.0 p.m.
One or two points have been raised in connection with National Insurance, and I should like to answer representations which have been made to me by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) and the right hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Templeton) in relation to the question of share fishermen and the difficulty they are in in connection with the National Insurance Act. Both hon. Members have been unceasing in their applications to the Ministry, and representations have been made as to the unfortunate and unfair position in which these men are placed. I am very glad to state that, after we have very carefully considered the case that they have put forward, we agree that something will have to be done, by which these men shall be incorporated in the National Health Insurance scheme. We propose, when we bring forward our new National Health Insurance Bill, which we will have to bring forward in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, to do our best to deal with the situation put forward by both the hon. Members. I hope that that will give satisfaction to a very deserving body of men up and down the country. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) criticised certain matters in connection with national health insurance, and raised very complicated questions, as did also the hon. Member for West Walthamstow,
I have here a complete explanation, which I think it would be better if I handed to the hon. Gentlemen, because I have not time to reply at length to-night. But I do want to say a word in connection with the position of the approved societies, and I am glad to say that I can report a very much more satisfactory position than I was able to state when I spoke in this House, I think on the Supplementary Estimate, some months ago.
I stated then that the claims made on approved societies had exceeded those of 1925, owing to the general strike and the coal stoppage, by a sum of over £2,000,000, and I also stated that people were being referred to referees at the rate of 400,000 or 500,000 as a consequence. I also stated that one of the unfortunate reasons for the position of approved societies at that moment was the fact that there was a serious shortage of contributions on account of unemployment. It is perfectly true that, following the coal stoppage, there was an unusual and unfortunate influenza epidemic in 1927, but I hope no one will think that, because of the unfortunate experiences of that year, the great financial strength of those societies can be said in any way to be disturbed. There are a good many indications of improved conditions. The sale of stamps at the post offices during the first five months of 1926 realised £8,125,000; the sale of stamps during the first five months of 1927 realised £8,480,000, an increase of about £350,000. The contribution income in 1926 was £740,000 less than in 1925 on the basis of the 1925 rates, and nearly the whole of that reduction was during the last eight months of the year. The hon. Gentleman made a point about the cash issues of approved societies. These during the first five months of 1926 were £7,720,000, and during the first five months of 1927, £7,940,000 apart from increases in additional benefits. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman can see that there is at any rate, a sign of improvement.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I asked a specific question as to whether, in view of the result of the Economy Act and the reduction of the contributions of the State, the societies will be in as good a position at the end of the present valuation period as they were at the end of the last valuation period?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not in a position to make any prophecy in regard to that.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I quite recognise that the hon. Gentleman cannot say what will be the state of affairs at the end of the valuation period, but could he state whether there is any prospect of a disposable balance for investment this year?

Sir K. WOOD: I think there is a good prospect of something being available for investment in that way, and there are signs of improvement in that connection. The only other matter with which I want to deal is the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton that something more should be done for the trade union approved societies. He said that the trade unions took a greater interest in approved societies than any other bodies. I have in my possession a statement made by the President of the National Union of Trade Union Approved Societies, at their annual conference on 14th June. This is the statement made by the president:
It was claimed before the Royal Commission that the apathy of insured persons indicated their contentment and satisfaction with the existing order of government in the Industrial Group, and the same apathy was lamented upon by friendly society representatives. This same negative quality is also the great barrier to our progress. It would be illogical to confess to the existence of apathy, and at the same time to claim that the democratic control of Health Insurance by insured members was in practice of any real value. A distinction should be drawn, however, between a type of society which affords real as distinct from theoretical opportunity for control by its members, and one which does not. The existence of apathy does not alter the fundamental difference between the two types. It nevertheless remains an indisputable fact that the approved society system of administration has not secured that active interest in its control which was predicted for it.
But the matter was carried further than that in the course of the discussion, and this is the observation of the reporter:
Some bitter references were made to the apathy of trade union leaders in general and to the Trades Union Congress in particular, who seemed to be concerned exclusively with industrial questions and to regard the insurance problem as a nuisance. It was suggested on the other hand that the trouble was the result of the apathy of the rank and file entirely, who, at the time the Insurance Act was passed, were inclined to regard it as a 'Lloyd George
stunt' and were not prepared to act until they were forestalled by the outside societies.
Councillor Ernest Corbey of Salford, the general secretary, while admitting that there was nothing to be gained by attempting to apportion blame; said they had to face the facts that nine-tenths of trade union executives looked upon National Health Insurance as a damned nuisance, and did not co-operate with them as they ought to do.
Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not again repeat the statement about the great trade union interest in national health insurance. I wish I could have dealt with the very excellent speech, if I may say so, of the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies), who dealt with small-pox and the necessary steps which should be taken by local authorities. I only want to make one observation on the hospital for post-graduate and medical education, because I do not want the hon. Gentleman, who, I know, has very great influence, or any other hon. Member, to be under the impression that there is any foundation for the statement that there is any idea in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that this should be a State institution. As a matter of fact, this institution is already acting under the auspices of a committee, of which the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, the President of the Royal College of Physicians, the representatives of the chief medical schools, and leading members of the profession like Lord Dawson of Penn are members. This institution will be in the same position as the others: there is no intention that we should start a State institution of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, and most hon. Members, believe in the voluntary principle, and I hope we shall do nothing to undermine it. I would like, in conclusion, to apologise to various hon. Members because I have not been able to answer the questions which they have put to me. I would like, on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, to thank the great majority of hon. Members who have spoken for the useful contributions which they have made to the Debate.

Mr. LAWSON: I have sat here all day in order to say a few words upon the subject which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health as to the very alarming facts concerning the
spread of small-pox. I am not one of those who have any love for anti-vaccination, but one thing which has always struck me about the vaccination enthusiastis is that they persistently ignore the connection between good food, and plenty of food, and good health. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health may say about the effects in areas where vaccination is being practised, they cannot get over the fact that the alarming spread of small-pox has kept pace with the growth of unemployment, reduction of wages, and reduction in the standard of life. It is in those areas where the standard of life is being reduced to the greatest extent that smallpox is growing at an alarming rate. The Minister of Health gave figures which showed that this disease was growing at an alarming rate, but he said it was a mild form of the disease compared with the usual small-pox. But I can speak with some knowledge of this subject, because of information I have had from my own district. No one must run away with the idea that this disease is not an extremely painful one, because it is. To some extent it runs in danger of marking the face like the old form of the disease, only in a milder way.
The right hon. Gentleman and the local authorities have a very great problem to deal with in this epidemic. I have watched it growing stage by stage, and, although I do not want to be an alarmist, I believe that if this disease is not dealt with more effectively than is the case at the present time, it will spread throughout the length and breadth of the country. I do not think the doctors have had to deal with anything like it before. The victims are ill for two days, and then, in most cases, they seem to be quite well. The average layman knows that it takes something like seven or eight days for small-pox to develop, or for the marks to become apparent. So that for five or six days a person may be carrying infection as he goes about his work or as he goes about the towns or villages. The right hon. Gentleman ought to get the doctors to make up their minds whether it is really small-pox and what are the symptoms of this particular disease. There is a well-known doctor in the North of England who says it is not small-pox at all, but a form of chicken-pox.
There are varying opinions as to what it is. There needs to be some con-census of opinion upon this matter. Whatever steps the right hon. Gentleman may take to prevent the spread of this disease, if he really gets down to the causes of it he will investigate the conditions of the people in those parts where small-pox exists. In my own area, the prevalence of the disease has been very extensive indeed. I am not going to say there are bad conditions existing in every family where small-pox breaks out. When fevers and other diseases break loose they spread among all sections of people. Here is what the medical officer of health for Chester-le-Street told the rural district council, and it is very interesting in view of the criticisms which have been levelled at Chester-le-Street as to the extravagant payments they are supposed to have made:
I see children at meals, and it is very pitiful in some cases to witness the straits to which people are reduced. Three or four days ago I was in a house where the cupboard was bare and tie children were getting a dinner which was an absolute disgrace. There was nothing in it to build up health, bone and muscle. When I spoke to the mother and told her that the children were not getting an adequate meal, she said it was the best she had. Many houses get no milk except a tin of condensed milk, which is, perhaps, made to serve a fortnight. Milk is essential for growing children. Until the people get more money through their fingers, I am afraid these circumstances will continue.
I use this material because I know it is first-hand, and because it is particularly in mining areas where small-pox is spreading. It would be impossible to convey to this Committee the physical deterioration which is taking place in the great minefields of this country at the present moment. It is one of the most pathetic sights, and I think it has had no parallel in our time. While the right hon. Gentleman may be right from the point of view of preventative purposes in emphasising the question of vaccination, he certainly will not do anything really effective unless he can pay strict attention to the proper feeding of the people in those areas where unemployment runs riot. While the right hon. Gentleman may be right, when we hear the elaborate statements as to the efficacy of vaccination, we say that vaccination is not very much good if people are not able to obtain a regular breakfast.
Question, "That a sum, riot exceeding £12,943,493, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. LANSBURY rose—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLASS II.

DOMINIONS OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £29,440, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs."—[Note: £20,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. MACPHERSON: Important as are the questions which have just been discussed, I make no apology when I ask the Committee to consider for a moment or two a matter of world-wide importance. I refer to the Report of the Imperial Conference, and particularly to one aspect of that Report. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) has been very persistent in this House in endeavouring to get a day, or time, for the discussion of that Report. Like many of us, he felt that if a document of such colossal importance was discussed in various other Parliaments of the Empire, it was, surely, not inappropriate that we should ask for a day, or even half a day, to discuss it in the Mother of Parliaments. Perhaps, though this discussion is late, it is not inappropriate that it should take place now, when we have just witnessed the return from their wonderful journey overseas of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York. Nothing fosters the spirit of Empire so much as personal contact, and no link is more powerful in the chain of the Imperial unity than the link of the Throne, and Their Royal Highnesses represented that combination with consummate success.
As hon. Members of the Committee are aware, the Report of the Imperial Conference wanders over a very wide field. There were, I think, three main and important points which were discussed. They are, inter-Imperial relations, foreign policy, defence, economic questions,
and consultation and communications. No doubt each and all of these questions will be discussed this evening, but, so far as I am concerned, I am going to devote my remarks to one question alone, a question which I regard as of primary importance, namely, the question of inter-Imperial relations. For the first time this Report asserts not only the doctrine, but the fact of equality of status among the constituent members and Parliaments of the Empire. If anyone reads the Report itself and the discussions in the various Parliaments of the Empire on the Report, they will find that they make wonderful reading. The general impression which I got, and which I think anybody would get, is that the magnificent conception of the British Empire, or, if you like, the British Commonwealth of Nations, is too big a thing to be left to the dangers and chances and caprices of ordinary party politics and that some step must be taken, as soon as it can be taken, to secure continuity and, above all, unity of purpose in a partnership so beneficent and so powerful for the good of the world. I notice in the Report that this question was discussed by the Conference. Very wisely, they said that nothing would be gained by laying down a hard-and-fast constitution for the British Empire, and in their Report they give various reasons for that view. May I just read a sentence or two from the Report, which puts in far better words than I can, on the spur of the moment, their reasons for this point of view. They say:
Its widely scattered parts have very different characteristics, very different histories, and are at very different stages of evolution; while, considered as a whole, it defies classification and bears no real resemblance to any other political organisation which now exists or has ever yet been tried. There is, however, one most important element in it which, from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters, reached its full development—we refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
To lay down a hard-and-fast constitution, would, in my judgment, be alien to the genius and traditions of the British people. I quote one other sentence from the Report:
A foreigner endeavouring to understand the true character of the British Empire by the aid of this formula alone would be tempted to think that it was devised rather to make mutual interference impossible than to make mutual co-operation easy.
In the art of government we have a code and method peculiarly our own. In my view, and in the view of the party I represent, there can be no forcing of any such growth, no undue precipitance. The only safe way is to trust to what the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) called in another connection, the inevitability of gradualness, and the inherent genius of our own people to find a way. The Imperial Conference itself, never so far-reaching in its importance and possibilities as it proved to be on this last occasion, is an example of this. It represents the evolution of past attempts at consultation, the steady silent growth from a Colonial Conference, as far back as 1887, exactly 50 years ago this year, and I am convinced of this, that if it attempted to be a super council or a supreme council sitting in judgment on the various constituent Parliaments of the Empire it would signally fail. It was my good fortune, in common with many of my colleagues, to be a member of the Empire Parliamentary Association which went to the great Dominion of Australia last year, and I am right in saying that all of us, whatever political party we belong to, found pride surging in our bosoms as we travelled round the world and realised that we could travel round the world always landing on British soil, except for an hour or two at Honolulu.
At Canberra, which has now become historic, we had a discussion on this very important topic, a discussion which was initiated with characteristic efficiency and ability by the right hon. Member for the Aston Division of Birmingham (Sir E. Cecil). We had, and it was a great joy to us, the advantage of many brilliant speeches, but there were two speeches which impressed themselves on my mind very vividly. One was the speech from the acting Prime Minister of Australia, Dr. Earle Page, and the other was a
speech from our old friend Mr. William Hughes. The gist of their speeches was that the problem before the British Empire was the application of the principles of democratic government to the circumstances of world Empire, and to continue to reconcile the irreconcilable—namely, the autonomy of the parts with the unity of the whole. It was clearly pointed out, not by one speaker but by every speaker, and every single Dominion under the British Crown was represented, that unity of policy is vital to the existence of the British Empire, and that unity of policy is and must continue to be the ideal of the Empire. The question which at once suggests itself is: how is that unity, that continuous policy, to be attained? Before any action is taken the mind of each Dominion should be known and well known to the deciding authority. My own view is that, although an annual imperial Conference is the ideal, it is quite clear to anybody who knows the far-flung lines of the British Empire that until space and time are obliterated this is quite impossible.
There is another consideration which militates against the holding of an annual conference. Hon. Members know very well how important it is to have the Prime Minister near at hand, and it has always been felt by the Prime Ministers of all the Dominions that it is perfectly impossible for them to be absent from their various Dominions except for a brief space of time. If for the moment an annual conference is impossible, what is to be done? Not only do I think that an annual conference is the ideal, but I go a step further, and I am supported by the united party for whom I am speaking. I have pointed out the almost insuperable obstacles against holding the conference annually, but it is important that when they are held there should be upon them representatives not only of Governments but of the Oppositions in the various Dominions of the Empire. In 1924, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), when he was at the Colonial Office, approached the various Parliaments of the Dominions to consider whether it was not practicable, particularly for a conference upon the constitution of the British Empire, to have representatives not only of Governments but of Oppositions as well. I could not do better than
read what was then regarded as the reply to any such suggestion. It will be remembered that the Labour Government demitted office during the course of the negotiations. But in any case, if they had been in office, I doubt very much whether, in view of the answers then given by the Prime Ministers of the more important Dominions, they could possibly have negotiated any further. I will read one or two sentences from Command Paper 2301, "Consultation on matters of foreign policy and general and Imperial interest," which was then issued. The reasons given by the Dominion Premiers at that time for opposing the proposal to have the Opposition as well as the Government as members of the Imperial Conference, were these:
It would tend to hamper that frank exchange of views and the unrestricted inter-communication of confidential information on such matters as foreign policy and defence. Furthermore, it might easily lead to serious consequences on the return of the delegations to their respective countries. The Leader of the Government and of the Opposition would, respectively, feel compelled to relate his version of the Conference and his reasons for agreement or disagreement with the conclusions arrived at. Further, an atmosphere of political controversy would inevitably obtrude into the Conference itself, and present free and unfettered discussions between men who at the time are actually shouldering responsibilities of Government in their respective countries would disappear.
That was the view then. May I say, with the greatest respect, that I do not think those objections, carefully thought out as they are, should for ever remain valid and insuperable. Let me take one outstanding case. I do not think anybody then commanded greater respect in this country or the Empire than did the Committee of Imperial Defence. It was in the heyday of its usefulness and fame, and, as the Secretary of State knows very well, it did enormously useful work, and indeed, had it not been for it we should have been far more unprepared than we were at the outbreak of the War. The problems which the Committee of Imperial Defence had to solve were almost the same as the problems that the Imperial Conference has to solve, relating to matters of defence and of foreign policy. But though a Liberal Government was in power at that time and had a very large majority behind it, I think Lord Asquith was very wise in inviting the then Leader of the Opposition,
Mr. Balfour, to participate in the deliberations and the discussions of the Imperial Defence Committee. I am convinced that none of the arguments which were advanced by the Prime Ministers of the Dominions in opposition to the proposal which I have made plain to the Committee, was ever used in this House or outside it, when all parties, Government and Opposition, were united in the Committee of Imperial Defence to consider the best way of maintaining the defence of the nation and the Empire. The fact remains, and one cannot gainsay it, that at the present moment some of the Dominions are averse from having the Opposition as well as themselves as delegates to the Imperial Conference. So long as those objections obtain, some machinery has to be devised for improved methods of consultation. I agree with the Report that when you are considering methods of that kind for improved consultation in the interval between the Conferences, you cannot rely upon the usual dogmas, but you have rather to look for some flexible machinery. I notice that in the White Paper I have read, one step was suggested by the Prime Minister of Australia during the course of the negotiations with the Labour Government. He thought that one step which should be taken—it has been taken, for all I know, because happened to be away last year during the Conference—and I think it is a reasonable step, was the creation of a permanent Secretariat. Mr. Bruce said:
At the present time the Secretariat for the Imperial Conference is provided by the British Government together with representatives of the Dominions concerned, but immediately the Conference is over the Secretariat is broken up and no effective machinery exists for keeping the Dominions continuously informed as to the developments or alterations necessitated by changed circumstances. In the opinion of my Government a great improvement would be effected by the establishment of a permanent Imperial Secretariat.
Not only is that one step which might well be considered, but in the course of the debate at Canberra there were various other proposals brought forward. One was that there should be an improvement in the status of the High Commissioners, that they in reality should be as it were, Ambassadors to this country, and that if the High Commissioners were not changed there might very well be appointed from all the Dominions a Minister
of Cabinet rank who would be resident for some time in London, irrespective of the Government in power, and that he should be in touch at all times with the Home Government. I do not know whether, in the discussion to which we listened in Canberra, that found very great favour or not, but the fact remains that the Australian Government has attempted to meet that suggestion in a practical way. It has, I believe, appointed a liaison officer, Captain Casey—I am not sure whether I am right in this—to act between the Australian Government and the Home Government on matters of foreign policy. I understand that this very valuable officer is doing most effective work, and that the Australian Government is now, as never before, acquainted with the various Foreign Office problems with which this country is confronted.
If none of these proposals is right, may I make a suggestion which I think is worth consideration. I see that the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir F. Nelson) is present. I went to Australia on this delegation, and the thought that suggested itself to many of us then, though not in exactly the same way, was that, as there is a Preparatory Commission in Geneva before, let us say, a Disarmament Conference, so there should be some sort of Parliamentary Conference or Convention composed of members of all parties from all the Dominions meeting once a year. Everyone knows that the essence of the work of a Preparatory Conference is to prepare the programme which will be discussed in the Plenary Session. What has been the experience of the Members of this House within the last three or four years? We have had an Empire Parliamentary Delegation not only to South Africa, but to Australia. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), who may have an opportunity of speaking in this Debate, was one of the Members who went to the Union of South Africa. Members of all parties went to Australia and, I believe, next year there may be an opportunity of going to Canada.
The desire of all the delegates whom I met from all the other Dominions was, that an attempt should be made to have a conference in London of men of all parties from all Parliaments in the
Empire. What did we do in Australia? I can only speak from my own personal experience. I found that these conferences were of great educational value. They embodied well-informed opinion and made each Parliament acquainted with the view not only of every other Parliament, but of every other party in every other Parliament throughout the Dominions. What were our experiences there? There was not a single State which we did not visit and there was not a single Parliament with whose members we did not discuss local and Imperial problems. It was not a question merely of the representatives of this Government visiting the Australian States; it was a question of delegates from every Parliament in the Empire going there. I do not know what were the experiences of my colleagues, but my own experience is clear in my mind. I found the journey a most profitable one. We went there, not as carping critics but as students and inquirers. We learned a great deal from the Australian States individually and collectively. We learned a great deal from the Ministers of the Federal Parliament and, as the delegation was composed I think I may say, of representative men from all parties in the State, the Australian people were good enough to say that they learned a great deal from us.
What stood out above all else was the fact that by personal influence and contact we came to realise the magnitude of their problems and their way of looking at things. We hope that, in return, by contact with us they realised the difficulties of the mother country in the executive control of this great Empire. I would impress upon the Secretary of State to consider whether in view of the fact that it is almost physically impossible to have a yearly plenary conference of the Empire we should not have, on the lines I am suggesting, a Parliamentary conference or convention, composed of men of all parties from all the Parliaments of all the Dominions meeting in some parts of the Empire once every year. I know a great many hon. Members are anxious to speak and I conclude by saying that these are the views of the party to which I belong. I believe, with some confidence, that they are the views of the House of Commons as a whole. We appreciate the unfailing interest which the Secretary of
State has shown throughout his political life and which he continues to show in Imperial problems and any assistance which we can give to maintain our Empire in its proud position as the greatest instrument for peace and liberty in this world we shall gladly give.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I think it would be singularly ungracious if I were not to express at the outset my great appreciation of the courtesy of the Liberal party in providing us with this opportunity of debating a matter of first rate importance. I do not wish to waste any of the short and precious time at my disposal in complaints or regrets as to the defects of our system of procedure, which permits such an anomaly as this, but I would, in one sentence, renew the protest which I made in the Debate on the Motion for Adjournment before Whitsuntide, against the vagaries of a system under which the vast majority of the Members of this House find it impossible, except by the grace and courtesy of their political opponents to raise questions of such importance as that which is raised to-night. I have a notice on the Order Paper to this effect:
That it is desirable that this House should have an opportunity of considering the declarations and recommendations contained in the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1926.
I notice that in the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada three or four months ago the Leader of the Conservative Opposition moved a Resolution to the effect that it was not desirable that that House should be deemed tacitly to have acquiesced in the declarations and recommendations contained in the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1926. Had an opportunity offered I should have been very glad to have moved in the House of Commons here in identical terms, for it seems to me that if it is regarded as intolerable that a Dominion Parliament should be deemed tacitly to have acquiesced in these recommendations and declarations, much more is it intolerable that the acquiescence of this Imperial Parliament—if we may be provisionally permitted to retain the use of that proud but, perhaps, archaic title—should be tacitly assumed. As far as I know, down to the present moment the only reference to this Report which has been made by a Minister of the Crown in the House
of Commons was an almost casual reference by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he said, speaking in the Debate on the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act:
The Dominions of the Crown, the great self-governing Dominions, are, certainly since this last Imperial Conference, co-equal with the United Kingdom. They do not belong to this Parliament; they are not in any sense subject to the jurisdiction of this Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1927; col. 1894, Vol. 203.]
Now the point I want the Committee to observe is that my right hon. Friend spoke of something having taken place since the last Imperial Conference, and I want to know whether we are to understand that, in the opinion of His Majesty's Ministers, there has been a change in constitutional relations since November, 1926? I want my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to tell us, quite frankly, has there been a change. If so, should not the Imperial Parliament at least have been informed of the change, if not asked formally to sanction it? If there has been a change, what precisely is the nature of the change? Has it affected or will it affect the prerogatives of the Crown? Has it affected or will it affect the rights or duties of this Parliament? We were told in many quarters, more or less responsible, last November when this Report first appeared that there had been no change in inter-Imperial relations. It was said that the old facts had been restated in a new way, that there had been a definition of status which was formerly vague, and so on, but that there had been no change. I want to know whether that is the view of His Majesty's Government. It is certainly not the view of His Majesty's advisers in another part of His Empire:
They had received from the last Imperial Conference "—
I am quoting—
the acknowledgment by Great Britain of their sovereign national status, with full abandonment by the British Government of any claim to control or superior authority, with the acknowledgment of all rights or privileges, both local and foreign, as equal, free peoples.
Those are the words of His Majesty's Prime Minister in the Union Parliament of South Africa. I want to know from His Majesty's Government to-night: Is it the case that the Dominions have received
from the last Imperial Conference the acknowledgment of their sovereign national status; was there by the British Government a full abandonment; if so, what did the British Government abandon; and by whom were they authorised to abandon it? The Leader of the Conservative party in the Dominion Parliament of Canada would seem, to some extent, up to a point, to have agreed with the Prime Minister of South Africa. Speaking in the Canadian House, he said:
Recommendations were made by the Conference involving what one must pronounce to be grave constitutional changes in Canada.
If such changes only affected Canada in a domestic sense, then I should not, perhaps, be entitled to ask what those changes were, but I think I am entitled to ask whether those changes had any reflex action upon the relations between Canada and the Imperial Government, and, if they had, I submit that this House is at least entitled to have official information as to what those changes were.
I want to put to my right hon. Friend one or two rather more specific and particular questions which arise directly out of this Report on Inter-Imperial Relations, but before putting those questions, which I will put as briefly as I can, I want to refer to one or two rather curious sentences in the Preamble of the Report, which begins—and to this I take no exception:
The Committee are of opinion that nothing would be gained by attempting to lay down a Constitution for the British Empire.
I agree; but it goes on:
There is, however, one most important element in it which, from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters, reached its full development—we refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined "—
and the Report proceeds to define them, but it goes on:
The principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status, do not universally extend to function. Here we require something more than immutable dogmas.
9.0 p.m.
When I read of immutable dogmas and readiness of definition, there sometimes crosses my mind a doubt whether we
were altogether wise in letting loose a metaphysician upon the constitution of the British Empire. I am afraid that a metaphysician in polities may be as dangerous as was an Athanasius in theology, and I can only hope that there will be no attempt to reduce to the articles of a creed the incomprehensible and conflicting dogmas which are, as I submit, accommodated by the subtlety of the metaphysician within the apparently innocent and prosaic pages of this Report. In any case, I hope I shall not be eternally damned if I find it difficult to subscribe to them in their entirety.
Now for the specific questions. The first relates to a matter which we have already debated in this House to some extent, though not since the proclamation of His Majesty; I mean the change in His Majesty's title. I confess that it strikes me rather oddly to read:
George V., by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King,
and so on, if, as I understand Ireland has claimed very specifically the status of a Dominion, because by this enumeration it is obviously excluded from the category of a Dominion. However, that is a point which I will allow to pass. The next question dealt with in the Report is the position of the Governors-General, on which the Report says:
In our opinion, it is an essential consequence of the equality of status existing among the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations that the Governor-General of a Dominion is the representative of the Crown, holding in all essential respects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the Dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain, and that he is not the representative or agent of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain or of any department of that Government.
What I want to know is this: Have His Majesty's Government indicated to the Dominions their acceptance of any change in the constitutional position or status of the Governors-General, and more particularly in their relation to the British Government? If they have indicated any such change, I should very much like to know precisely what it is. If the Governor-General is to be no longer the representative or agent of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain or of any Department of that Government,
then two questions seem to me inevitably to arise, which it is very important to set at rest. The first is, On whose advice is the Governor-General to be appointed by the Crown? and the second is, Through what channel is the Governor-General to communicate with the Crown? Are these communications with the Crown brought to the knowledge of His Majesty's constitutional advisers in this country, or are they not? I express a respectful hope that we may have clear answers to these specific questions.
The next question dealt with is the operation of Dominion legislation. The attention of the Conference was called to a number of points which are, no doubt, familiar to hon. Members, and which I will not read in full, but I would draw the attention of the Committee to the conclusion at which the Conference arrived. They came to the conclusion:
that the issues involved"—
that is to say, in the operation of Dominion legislation—
were so complex that there would be grave danger in attempting any immediate pronouncement other than a statement of certain principles which, in our opinion, underlie the whole question of the operation of Dominion legislation.
If I may respectfully say so, I think they arrived at a very wise conclusion. What I want to know is: Has this Committee to which this conclusion points actually been set up? If it has, might the House of Commons know what is the personnel of that committee? Then there was the question of merchant shipping legislation, in regard to which the Conference finally came to the conclusion, following a precedent which had been found useful on previous occasions, that the general question of merchant shipping legislation had best be committed to a special sub-conference. Has that sub-conference met? Obviously this question of merchant shipping legislation raises a matter of great practical as well as of great theoretical significance, because, as all the Members of this Committee are very well aware, there exists a long series of Acts relating to merchant shipping, Acts which have been passed by this Parliament as the Sovereign Parliament of the Empire and the only body which is competent to pass legislation
binding upon all parts of the Empire. So far as I am aware, no one has up to the present, at any rate up to the publication of this Report, ever questioned the sovereign authority of the King in Parliament as a legislature competent to legislate for the Empire as a whole and to enact laws which possess equal validity in all parts of it. It is perfectly true that the actual sphere of its legislative activity has been very strictly and severely limited. In practice it has been confined to securing objects which are common to the Empire as a whole but are outside the competence of any given Colonial Legislature. I want to know whether that function—and here we are, I suppose, in the region of dogmas which are immutable—has ceased? Would it or would it not still be competent to this Parliament to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts?
There are many other points in this Report to which, if time permitted, I should have been only too glad to call attention. The Report of the Conference as a whole and the discussions which have taken place on it in the Dominion Parliaments have filled me with a certain measure of anxiety and disquietude. It seems to me there is in some quarters a disposition very loyally to accept, indeed, to accentuate, the position of the Crown as the head of the Executive Government of the Empire, but to repudiate the authority of the King in Parliament. That seems to me to be a differentiation of rather sinister augury, with rather unhappy associations. I will not recall those associations more particularly, because they are sinister, and I do not want to tread to-night on ground so delicate; but I will venture to say that no constitutional jurist can be satisfied with the attempt to differentiate between the two aspects and the two functions of sovereignty, which, if not inseparable, cannot without manifest danger, be divorced one from the other. I have already hinted that this Report fills me with some disquietude, not only because of, and perhaps less by reason of, what it actually contains, but also by reason of the scant attention which has been given to it in this country, and particularly in this House of Commons, scant attention given to a document which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and
Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) said, is a document admittedly of profound and far-reaching constitutional significance.
I had great hopes, 10 years ago, that under the stress of the Great War we were, as an Empire, taking large and rapid strides in the direction of a more organic unity of the Empire. I recall very well the prediction of a distinguished military historian in Germany to the effect that the first shot fired in the great European war would mean the dissolution of Great Britain's loosely-compacted Empire. The words were the words of General Bernhardt. We all recall how completely that prediction was falsified by events. We all recall how, as month succeeded month, the union was drawn closer and closer; and I shall never forget the day when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), then at the head of His Majesty's Government—I am very sorry he is not in his place to-night—announced to the great satisfaction of the House that it had that day been determined that the Imperial War Cabinet should form an integral and permanent part of our Imperial Constitution. I think it was on the 17th May, 1917. There were many of us who that day were prepared to sing Nunc Dimittis. Then came the Peace Conference in Paris. That was followed, as we all know, and as some of us regret, by a definite lowering of the Imperial temperature, which in the Report we are discussing to-night seems to me to have fallen very near to zero; and the worst of it is that hardly anybody seems to care.
A South African statesman is reported as having said that the British Empire now exists as a name only. I hope he was misreported, but if he was correctly reported then I hope and believe that events will prove his assertion to be inaccurate. In this matter, as the Committee is very well aware, there has been, for years past, a continual ebb and flow of opinion, there has been action and reaction. For the moment I think we are in the trough of the waves. I hope and believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—and there is no man in whom the Empire has greater confidence—will succeed in righting the craft, and I hope he will forgive me for having broken to-night a silence which I, at any rate, do not regard as golden.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The hon. Member who has just sat down gave us a considerable wealth of historical facts and he quoted some learned conundrums on constitutional law to the Secretary of State for the Dominions, but I do not propose to follow on his lines. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) raised the issue of whether or not it was possible to have an annual Parliamentary Congress of the Empire, and, as I understood him, he spoke on behalf of the Liberal party and declared that he accepted the point of view so repeatedly urged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) that in these Parliamentary Conferences the Opposition should be represented. I know the arguments which are used against this annual conference. There are arguments of space and time and lack of money, and I do not propose, and indeed I am not at all competent, to discuss them. But surely there might be agreement on this, that every triennial Imperial Conference should be preceded by a Parliamentary Conference representative of all parts of the Empire, and this I take it could quite easily be organised by the Empire Parliamentary Association. These triennial Parliamentary Conferences might quite easily and quite speedily develop into something in the nature of a Standing Committee of an Imperial Parliament, and we might in our British way develop almost unconsciously into that dream, which many of us hold, of an Imperial Parliament representing all parts of the Empire dealing with Imperial questions only, and leaving every other constituent part of the British Empire with a free measure of Home Rule to look after its own affairs.
Certainly, there are questions which somehow have got to be discussed in common and which cannot be dictated from Whitehall. There are, for instance, questions such as migration, trade, tariffs, defence, foreign relations, and so forth; and no one who studies events in Australia and follows Australian party politics can fail to observe the necessity for closer touch being established between this country and Australia—that is only one illustration—before the tariff barriers and tariff walls are broken to such an extent as to make that economic and organised unity we so desire, a
reality. When one sees, for instance, the tariff being raised, say, by the motor group in this country, and when one understands the feelings aroused, say, in Leicester by a tariff on hosiery in Australia, it seems all the more urgent that steps should be taken, not to interfere with the economic independence of this country or Australia, but to have a joint discussion on all these matters.
In this Parliamentary Convention, which I trust the Secretary of State will see his way to encourage by bringing the suggestion before the Empire Parliamentary Association prior to the next Imperial Conference, I hope there will be representatives of all parts of the Empire, and not of the self-governing Dominions only. I should like to see tribal representatives, representatives of every section and every part of the British Empire, in that Parliamentary Convention. Certainly, there is no reason that I can understand why Ceylon and the West Indies and India should not be represented, and if representatives of those parts, as well as from Nigeria, the Gold Coast, Kenya, and so on, were selected on a tribal basis, it would bring them into touch with the other representatives of the Empire. That would do much more, in my belief, to strengthen the economic and organic unity of the Empire than anything else we have done. I want to say a word about some things in the Report of the last Imperial Conference. It is rather surprising to me that an important issue and an important document such as this should only be possible of discussion, as the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) put it, by the courtesy of one section of the Opposition.

Mr. MACPHERSON: He said by the courtesy of the Liberal party.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Liberal party is a section of the Opposition, but, if the right hon. Gentleman prefers me to say, "by the courtesy of the Liberal party," I will say it. There are matters referred to in this Report which I do not think have been discussed here at all. There is, for instance, the work of the Empire Marketing Board, which has not been discussed in this House, and yet no more important development has taken place than the establishment of this Board. They are doing very valuable work on research,
but I am not so sure that they are doing such valuable work with regard to markets and the organisation of markets which they might very well do. Mr. Bruce, the Australian Prime Minister, said at the last Imperial Conference—I am quoting from page 73 of the Report of that Conference:
Practically every great country in the world to-day has taken some step towards organisation on a basis of co-operative marketing, and it is very possible that on this whole question we might have to take an Imperial point of view.
Later on, after referring to rubber and cotton, he said:
Co-operative marketing is a factor which we shall have increasingly to consider in the future … I am certain that in the end, it will be enormously to the benefit of the consumer if we can get all marketing done on a basis where the producers are not subject to the machinations of the speculator.
That is the considered opinion, not of a Socialist, but of the anti-Labour Premier of Australia. There has got to be co-operative marketing to get rid of, as he calls it, the machinations of the speculator before the profits of trade can accrue to the producer there and the consumer here, and to the producer here and the consumer there. Some attempt has been made, I know, at the organisation of our markets. In New Zealand, according to the statement of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, co-operative organisations under the ægis of the State, have succeeded in securing very considerable reductions in freights and in storage rates. In that connection, I might quote a statement made by Mr. Bruce in dealing with the case of Australia. He said:
Take the case of meat. A man will breed cattle, carry them for five years, perhaps, transport them conceivably hundreds of miles to a meat works, bear all the cost of treatment at the meat works, bear the freight, bring the meat to Britain with the insurance and other incidental charges, and probably will get for his whole share about one-half to one-third of what is received by those who handle the meat after it has actually reached the hands of the distributor in this country.
Something has got to be done about that. It is not only in regard to meat, but every other commodity which comes from the Dominions. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman now feels himself in a position to tell the Committee and the country what befell the Australian apple crop two years ago.The entire Tasmanian
apple crop was marketed in this country. There were the transport, the refrigerator, and freight costs, and all the rest of it. It was brought to London, the harbour dues were paid, and it was sold in this country. What did the Tasmanian grower get? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the Committee that the Australian grower got nothing for his crop, but had, instead, to send a cheque for something like £30,000 to pay the cost of marketing his goods. With instances like that which occur in regard to fruit and other marketing, and with the evidence we have through the Department of Overseas Trade, there is the fact that the present Government, in letting out their meat contracts, have never considered another aspect of the matter. I asked the Secretary of State for War whether in the meat contract—which was not given to Australia last year but to South America—there was any stipulation about fair wages and fair conditions or hours of labour. He said, "No, it does not apply outside this country." Australia applies it; South America does not apply it, and the right hon. Gentleman purchases in South America the meat supply for this country. The competition is not on a fair basis. If Australia is working a 44-hours week and paying decent wages, and no attempt whatever is made to insist that Australia's competitors shall pay equally fair wages and observe decent conditions, then I submit that the spirit of the Resolution passed in this House regarding fair wages and fair conditions of labour is being ignored by His Majesty's Government and that Australia is not having a fair chance to compete.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has the latest figures or not, but it seems to me that, apart from the self-governing Dominions altogether, the extraordinary development in British trade and exports to what are called, or used to be called, our Colonies, is worthy of careful study. The figures which I have extracted from the Report of the last Imperial Conference work out something like this. Our exports to these Colonies in 1905 were £18,000,000. In 1913 they had grown to £47,000,000, and in 1925 to £60,000,000. Over those years they have grown by 300 per cent. Allowance must, of course, be made for the
change in prices, but nevertheless the volume of the increased exports to these Colonies deserves the very careful consideration of this Committee.
There is another side to the matter. As I understand it, every family in Australia purchases to-day somewhere about £60 worth of British goods per annum—probably more than £60. What is every family in Greece or in South America purchasing? I cannot get the figures. I have asked questions in this House until I am tired. I have written letters to the Department of Overseas Trade, but, while I acknowledge the courtesy of the present Secretary to the Department, I cannot get the figures, because he does not have them. After months have elapsed, perhaps you get a letter from some British Consul in South America saying that the value of the peso and of money has changed and that it does not buy so much meat as it used to do, and so on, but all that is meaningless. Surely, some Department of State ought to be able to inform us exactly what is the purchasing power per family of every other country in the world. Let us have the facts before us. We have fiscal discussions up and down the country, but we have not the facts, and, as far as I know, no Government Department has them.
Lastly, I should like to say that it is not only in regard to food commodities that effective organisation under the auspices of the Empire Marketing Board could take place. There are raw materials in regard to which effective organisation could be established. Raw materials probably might be the first thing that the Empire Marketing Board, if it knew its business, could tackle. I take the question of the raw material, which forms the staple industry of the city I represent in this House—jute. It is all grown in the British Empire and in one Province—Bengal. Yet last year, owing to speculators and market riggers—and forestallers and regraters, as they used to say in the old Acts of the Scottish Parliament—who have never handled the stuff at all and who are useless parasites on the business, the price for the same quality of first-class raw jute, grown in the same Province and from the same harvest, fluctuated between £29 and £61 per ton. I submit that there is no industry which can be conducted
satisfactorily on a fluctuating basis of that kind. It cannot be done. Decent wages cannot be paid to workers. It would be, surely, very easy for the manufacturers concerned to organise co-operative buying departments and wipe out the speculator. If they will not do it thoroughly, then the British Government must step in and undertake to be the sole importer or organise the imports of such commodities.
Someone may well ask why they do not seize the opportunity of stabilising the price of the raw material. The answer is quite simple: many of them are far more interested in making money as speculators, as middlemen, than they are as owners and managers of factories. If they will not do it, I submit that it is the business of the Empire Marketing Board, in the interest of the British people and of the Indian ryot, in the interest of inter-Imperial commerce, to step in and see that these and similar grievances are remedied. In the Report of one of the Sub-Committees of the Imperial Economic Conference, the Sub-Committee on Industrial Standardisation, some information is given which I have never seen referred to in Debates in this House. That Sub-Committee reported that in Great Britain as a result of even voluntary organisation and standardisation, the number of iron and steel sections was reduced from some hundreds to 113, and that a saving of 5s. per ton. in cost of manufacture has been effected as a consequence. The Report goes on to say:
It has recently been estimated that the value of the stocks of ironmongery in wholesalers' and retailers' hands in Great Britain amounts to some 25 million pounds sterling, and that comparatively moderate measures of simplification, by reducing the number of types, would probably result in the release of one-fifth of the working capital thus locked up.
We are also told that in South Africa the number of types of engines required for the railways has been reduced by standardisation from 68 to 11, all going in the direction of making British industry more efficient. That organisation we have been urging, with no success whatever, upon the coal-mining industry in this country. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman to-day will give us some indication that he sees beyond the mere party squabbles of the moment, and that he is prepared to use all his opportunities,
all his powers of persuasion through the Empire Marketing Board, to put our Imperial relationships on a new and better footing, to better British trade, not by the acceptance of tariffs and so on, which arouse controversy, but, using the powers he has now, to increase the purchasing power of the inhabitants of this Empire, because only by so doing can we increase British exports, reduce unemployment, and make for British happiness and prosperity.

Mr. O'NEILL: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) associated himself with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) to the effect that it was curious that it was so difficult to obtain time to discuss these important Imperial questions on a Supply day in the House of Commons. I quite agree, so far as regards the complaint on this side of the House, but, surely, the remedy of the hon. Member opposite is to get his own leaders to ask for a Supply day upon which these important Imperial matters could be properly and profitably discussed. The hon. Member began his speech in an eminently high, and, if I may say so, most statesmanlike way; and, although what he said in the latter portion of his speech was extraordinarily interesting about the Empire Marketing Board, I nevertheless felt that it would have been better to have kept the discussion upon the larger and higher plane upon which it was opened by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). It is possible to discuss these comparatively minor matters on other days, but I feel that it would be well to say a word or two with regard to the larger issue which has been raised.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty envisaged some very interesting possibilities when he referred to conferences which might take place—conferences composed of members from all the Parliaments of the Empire, assembled together here in London, from all parties in those Parliaments, to discuss matters of common Imperial concern. It is something very like an All-Imperial Parliament. The excellent work of the Empire Parliamentary Association has, in fact, enabled conferences of that character to take place in certain
Dominions, and, as the hon. Member for Dundee suggested, very rightly, in my view, those conferences arranged by the Empire Parliamentary Association will, it is to be hoped, be continued and expanded. I cannot, however, see that that has really much to do with the Imperial Conference as we have understood it hitherto, that is to say, a Conference of representatives of Governments who are sent to the Conference with definite powers to take decisions and carry things out.
Any extension which may be found possible of the idea of Dominion Governments having representatives in this country at the Foreign Office, such as I understand the Australian Government have, is all to the good. I remember, not long ago, being at a meeting where I heard the Australian representative to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred give a very interesting account of what he, in association with his Government, was carrying out. I hope that that kind of thing will be extended and developed, but, of course, it must take time. In the meantime we are progressing. For example, there has been the Conference of representatives from the Crown Colonies which was held in London quite recently under the auspices of the Secretary of State—I think the first conference of its kind which has ever taken place in the history of the Empire. I have no doubt that that Conference, the Report of which was recently issued, will be found to have accomplished some very useful results.
With regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for York said about the Report on Inter-Imperial relations from the Imperial Conference, my hon. Friend asked the Secretary of State a number of very appropriate and very categorical questions. They were questions which emanated from one whose experience and knowledge of constitutional and Imperial matters are very high indeed, but, at the same time, I have a sort of feeling that it would be better if those questions were not asked. In fact, I doubt whether it would be possible for the Secretary of State to answer them categorically, and, even if he could, I doubt whether it would be wise.
This report on Imperial relations is, as it was described at the time it was issued, a great State document of very vast importance;
but it is nothing in the nature of a written Imperial constitution. If it was, I think the Empire would not be so closely held together as it is under the present system. What it really did was to put upon paper a great many things which were, in fact, the case before. It elaborated them, and although there may be in it points which we may individually think had perhaps better be left alone, I feel that, on the whole, thanks no doubt to the great ability of the great statesman who presided over that Conference, the report of the committee will go down in the history of the Empire as being constructive rather than destructive, and that it will result not in the worsening but in the improving, if it were possible, and the bettering of the relations between the different Dominions of the Crown.
I had not intended to say anything when I came into the House, and the few observations which I have made constitute what I feel to be the genesis of this matter with regard to the Committee on Imperial Relations. I am sorry that a matter of such great importance should be debated in a House so small. That is a sentiment which is very often used in this House. Of course, we all know that there cannot be a large House for every matter; bat I am sorry, particularly in view of the very statesmanlike speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, that he and two other hon. Members beside him are the sole representatives of his party in this Debate. However, I feel sure that a useful purpose has been served by the raising of these great Imperial matters, and it is right and proper that they should be raised in this Imperial Parliament.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I must confess that I regret very much that the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) declared that he was filled with disquietude and anxiety because of the report of the Conference on Imperial Relations. On the contrary, I am filled with hope and confidence for the future by reason of the findings of the Conference. The Conference dealt with facts in a most practical manner. The hon. Member for York says that he is filled with disquietude. I think it is because he has been trying laboriously to pull up the tree by its roots. I prefer to watch the Imperial tree growing. We must all
realise that the whole framework of the Empire has gone through marvellous stages in the last 40 years. It is little more than a generation ago since the first Imperial Conference met. That Conference was groping for a way and asking anxiously how the Empire could be held together, and now we have had this remarkable Conference of 1926, which will stand out as a landmark in the history of all Imperial Conferences by reason of that remarkable declaration which was made: a declaration which I like to call a declaration of the independence and inter-dependence of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. We all remember in the history of years ago a very different declaration of independence. If in those days we had proceeded on the lines on which we are now proceeding, history would have taken a very different aspect.
Other Members wish to speak, and as there are so many aspects of a variety of questions raised by the proceedings of the Conference which may be dealt with, I will endeavour to confine myself to one particular aspect, and it is that which was raised by the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). We have in this report a view of the whole of the Empire and of the independence and interdependence of the different parts of the Empire quite different from anything we have envisaged before; not because it did not exist but because we had not seen it. It is rather like a picture thrown upon the screen which has set up in relief the bones or the framework of the Empire, and shows the manner in which it is held together. It has done a great deal to clarify vision, and that is a great asset when we are trying to take long views for the future. When the Conference first met, the Prime Minister said in his opening address:
The problem before us is how to reconcile the principle of self-government in external as well as domestic affairs with the necessity for a policy in foreign affairs and general Imperial concerns which will commend itself to a number of different Governments and Parliaments.
A solution of that problem is, I think, to be found in the declaration to which I have referred; a declaration on which the whole work of the Conference hinges The hon. Member for York referred to the alteration in the position of Governors-General of the Dominions. That
alteration will, I think, be of very great importance in the future for avoiding possibilities of friction. The principle which has been laid down, that the Governor-General should not in any way represent the Imperial Parliament but should stand in the position of the King, while the Government at home and the Government in the Dominion should communicate with one another direct, is a principle which if it is kept in future is a perfectly sound and safe one. We all realise that there are difficulties in machinery in keeping the official contact. The Conference fully realised that, but these are difficulties which can be got over so long as we keep the main principle in view.
In the great variety of questions which came before the Conference, to mention only a few, such as foreign policy, Treaty making, Dominion representation abroad, air routes, statistics on wool, Imperial shipping, research, especially agricultural research, and the marketing of Imperial produce, one outstanding idea covers the manner in which all these matters were dealt with, and that is the great importance of the exchange of information, and personal contact. To keep close contact between the different parts of the Empire, not only by the machinery for correspondence but by personal contact, is very much stressed. That being so from the official point of view, it is equally if not more important that contact should be kept up by what I may call the non-official contact.
Reference has been made to the very valuable work that has been done by the Parliamentary Delegations which have gone from one part of the Empire to another, composed of men of every party, meeting unofficially with men of every party in the Dominions and exchanging views. Someone has suggested that that class of work should be done by preparatory commissions for the Imperial Commissions which sit from time to time. That, I think, is rather a useful suggestion. I was very much struck a little time ago by hearing a Member of the Parliament of the Union of South Africa at a lunch given in the House of Commons here saying that the enormous success of the visit of the Prince of Wales to South Africa was due in a very large degree to the work that had been done by the Parliamentary Delegation a
short time before. The interchange of views between men of every party in that part of the Empire had tended to create an atmosphere which was entirely favourable to the Prince's visit, and after that we had General Hertzog coming to the Imperial Conference and being entirely satisfied with its work. That that declaration has been received with approbation from Dominions having such different angles of view as Canada, South Africa and Australia, shows on what firm ground it is based. We do not find that it met with approval in one portion of the Empire and disapproval in another, but we find it has met with universal approval. Keeping that well in the forefront of the picture, we have to build machinery which shall be useful in carrying out the ideas that we have of an Empire. I dislike the word "Empire." The phrase "Commonwealth of Nations" is long, but when we say "Empire" we mean the British Commonwealth of Nations, all autonomous, not one of them subject to the other, but all marching in one direction and inspired by like ideals, and in order that they may march best and get the greatest advantage from their progress, it is obvious that they must have full and up-to-date information each of what the other is doing. That is a question of keeping up personal contact.
10.0 p.m.
I have touched lightly on unofficial contact. Now I should like to come to the official contact in the Imperial Conference itself. We all know the great difficulty of calling these vast Imperial Conferences at short periods. It is generally admitted that it is outside practical politics. The three year period is as short as is compatible with practical politics, but we have to remember also that Governments come and go, and though I quite admit that the people who represent any portion of the Empire at a Conference must in the main be the Government of that portion of the Empire, Governments change, and you may have at an Imperial Conference, we will say, Australia represented by one colour of Government, and Great Britain by another, and six months later both those Governments go out and the colour is changed both in Australia and here. Surely, if that is a very likely possibility, would it not be desirable that the Opposition should be represented at the Conference as well as the Government?
His Majesty's Opposition has a well defined place in our institutions. Why should it not have an equally well defined place in the Imperial Conference? I do not see that any harm could result from it and I see that a great deal of good might result, and as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is a matter that should be taken into consideration with a view to future Conferences. All of us in the House—it does not matter on which benches we sit—are equally proud and take an equal interest in the Empire of which we are members, and I am sure it would strengthen future Conferences if members of other parties were represented. I believe at Geneva people who are not actual delegates are called observers. Let them in some shape or form take a part in Imperial Conferences, and it would strengthen rather than weaken them in future.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: I want to deal with that aspect of the Imperial Economic problem that was dealt with briefly by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). I refer to the work of the Empire Marketing Board, which was set up for the purpose of promoting British Imperial trade—the sale of Imperial products in the Oversea Dominions and the sale of Oversea Dominion products in this country. I do not want to appear critical of the Board. In fact I feel every sympathy with them in the difficult task they have undertaken. £1,000,000 has, I understand, been voted for the purpose of an advertising campaign. That campaign has been going on for some months, and I should like to congratulate the Board on the conception of some of the posters I see throughout the country. You see large posters representing the vast potential wealth of the Empire, others pointing out the trade routes of the Empire, and others pointing to the fact that the Oversea Dominions have purchased so many million pounds worth of British goods last year. All these posters, no doubt, have their value, but I am actuated in this matter by some experimental inquiries I have made in my constituency. I have asked several men and women of the type generally referred to as the man in the street if they would not prefer to buy British manufactured goods or goods from the Overseas Dominions which were just as
good, if not better than the foreign article and which were sold as cheap, if not cheaper than the foreign article. They said they would, but with the uncanny commonsense the man in the street usually possesses, they put their finger on the crux of the whole matter when they asked, "What are these goods, and how are we to find out where they are for sale?"
There is where I think the present method of advertising adopted by the Empire Marketing Board is at fault. It is too general in its application, and I think these posters are too much what we might call the rhetoric of advertising. If we could come down from the general to the particular and point out to these people the particular goods that are available that are produced by our own people overseas or at home and where they are obtainable, I feel quite confident that would be one means of increasing our Imperial and British trade and bringing home to the man in the street its potentialities. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade made a speech recently in which he said that the best means of fostering British trade was to bring buyer and seller together. There, I think, he hit the nail on the head. If we could find means of bringing buyers and sellers of British goods together and stimulating by propaganda the sale of these goods, I feel confident that the British housewife would always respond to that appeal. About 30 London boroughs are carrying out an Empire shopping week some time next month, and I think it is an excellent idea. I am also pleased to know that Brighton carried out a similar shopping week a short time ago.
My point is, why do the Board not concentrate to a greater extent upon such shopping weeks and introduce them in every part of the country? By doing so I am confident they would increase the volume of British trade and help to carry out the functions for which the Board was created. I was very much struck by figures which appeared in the "Times" in a statement on Canada. No one who has the interests of the Empire at heart can help being impressed by those figures. It was stated that nearly 79 per cent. of all the commodities imported into Canada are of foreign origin and that foreign countries take more than 56 per cent. of Canadian exports. The goods imported
by the United States into Canada were nearly 67 per cent. of all the goods imported into that country. Naturally, you may ask why Canada, which receives a preference from this country, should be so inundated with American goods. It is not entirely due to the geographical position of that country, but to the fact that they are the pioneers, I consider, of advertising their articles. Anyone who knows Canada knows that American goods are always being boosted in that country and are being brought home to housewives throughout the Dominion. That, I consider, is a field for this Board, and it is a field which should be developed to a greater extent. If that were done, I feel quite confident that this country has nothing to fear for its industrial future nor has it any reason to be envious of the United States of America. We have within the borders of our Empire far greater resources than the United States of America. It only requires concentration and development, and bringing home to the British consumer of the necessity of purchasing articles of British manufacture and to advertise that trade, to develop the Empire to a greater extent

Mr. RAMSDEN: I should like to say that I cannot quite follow the last speaker when he said that all the money was being spent by the Empire Marketing Board on advertising. I am glad to think that a good proportion of this money is to be spent in other directions which will be just as useful. Particularly in that work of research which is to be carried out on a much larger scale throughout the Empire. With regard to the advertising campaign, I think we must have a little patience before we can hope to see real results. This campaign has only really been started, and I think it has already done a considerable amount of good. I am afraid it would be impossible to carry out the suggestion that individual articles should be advertised to the public. I do not think it is the function of any authority such as the Empire Marketing Board to deal with particular proprietary articles and to make them known. I agree with the majority of hon. Members that the Imperial Conference was undoubtedly the greatest conference of its kind that has ever taken place. I feel confident that as a result of what has taken place there, the Empire will be bound together with even stronger links.
The Conference directed public attention very strongly to inter-Empire trade. I am very glad that there is a growing realisation of the advantage to us of this inter-Empire trade. I am glad that this realisation is becoming stronger every day, because I feel that if it is thoroughly understood we shall be going a very long way towards solving some of our important problems, particularly unemployment. I am glad that the Empire Marketing Board is helping very materially in that direction. There are, however, certain obstacles in the way which I believe are hindering that Board in furthering their proposals. I do not intend to give the Committee figures as to the trade that takes place between Great Britain and Australia and the other Dominions because I feel that everyone here knows as well as I do what they really represent. Although this inter-Empire trade is growing year by year it is not yet all that we would desire. Although the Board is really doing excellent work to help to increase it, they are meeting with certain obstacles, and this happens to be the case incidentally in the West Riding of Yorkshire. As one who has preached Empire trade in season and out of season, has tried to advocate the use of British goods on every possible occasion, very often I have been met by criticisms as to the high tariffs which are levied against British goods by some of the Dominion Governments.
I do not think that anyone wishes to deny for a single moment the right of the Dominions to govern themselves and to propose any tariff, however high it may be, if they wish to do so. As one who preaches that the Dominions themselves can only absorb more British-manufactured goods in proportion to the prosperity which they attain, I find that it is sometimes rather difficult to be told, as I firmly believe is the case, that exactly the same thing applies to us, namely that unless the Dominions are willing to take our manufactured goods and to take them in large quantities so that we may give more employment to our people, we, in turn, cannot purchase as much as we should like from the different parts of the British Empire. I sincerely hope that our statesmen across the seas will recognise that this inter-
Empire trade is really mutual in the most real sense of the word, and that if they wish us to increase, and to increase materially, the purchases of all Empire products, they will have to help us to attain that prosperity which they themselves wish to enjoy.
I am perfectly convinced that if by a stroke of fortune we could find employment for practically all the workers in this country at a good rate of wages, there would be nothing better that we could do to help the different parts of the Empire, because our prosperity would immediately be reflected in very much greater purchases of everything they produce. I do hope they will seriously consider whether the somewhat excessive increases of tariffs, such as we have seen imposed during the last few years, and which have had the effect in certain industries of practically prohibiting the import of the classes of British manufactured goods concerned, have not been harmful. It is not very pleasing for a manufacturer who has built up a business in the Dominions after, probably, a great deal of effort and a great deal of labour, to find that, by a stroke of the pen, the Customs duties have been increased, and that he and the people employed in his factory are going to suffer very materially from these increases. These are not the people who are going to back up enthusiastically the "Buy British Goods" campaign. I do hope they will very seriously consider whether such little pinpricks that we have received from time to time are really worth while, and whether they get any advantage out of them. After all, there is scope in the Empire for development on very different lines from those in this country, and if they fully develop on those different lines and they help us to do so on ours as well, I think we shall obtain greater prosperity for all parts of the Empire.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I think those who have been present in the Committee during the last two hours will realise that my difficulty to-night is to know how to reply in the time at my disposal to the very wide range of subjects which has been raised in the Debate. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), in the latter part of his speech, made some very interesting
suggestions—suggestions with a very large part, though not with all, of which I find myself in agreement—in connection with what the Empire Marketing Board might be able to do in order to secure greater stability of prices and the better organisation of our trade with the Dominions. The two hon. Members who have just spoken have also raised various economic questions, some connected with the work of the Empire Marketing Board and some of quite a general character affecting inter-Imperial trade. I know those hon. Members will forgive me when I say that if I attempt to answer the points they have raised it will be impossible for me to do justice to the very important constitutional issues, which we may not have another opportunity of debating, which have been brought before the House by the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) and the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott).
The constitutional issues raised by these two hon. Members, and by other hon. Members, fall into two main parts. They have dealt either with the machinery of our inter-Imperial consultation, the ways and means by which that machinery might be improved, or they have dealt, as did the hon. Member for York, with the actual issues raised in the Report of the last Imperial Conference. May I deal with the former for a moment. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty that, if it were possible to hold the Imperial Conference annually, the unity of the Empire, which depends so vitally on personal contact, responsible personal contact, would be immensely strengthened. The hon. Member for York reminded the Committee that there was a time, during the later stages of the War, when it seemed to all of us—I mean the representatives of the Dominions as well as the representatives of the Government of this country—that it might be possible to hold these Imperial meetings annually. Experience has shown us that it is impossible to get a conference of Governments, which to be effective must be a conference of the heads of Governments, in ordinary times much oftener than once in three years, although in times of emergency, under our flexible machinery, they could be called together oftener and could be sitting almost continuously,
as they were during 1918 and 1919. But in ordinary times we shall have to be content, at any rate until the airship has greatly reduced the length of transit from the different portions of the Empire, with a meeting every two or three years; and the question is, how in the intervals between these meetings personal contact can be strengthened and improved.
There is, of course, one method of contact which has long been provided for, and that is the meeting of subsidiary conferences on special subjects. These began as far back as 1907, and they have increased in frequency and also in real usefulness in recent years. At this moment a very important conference is taking place in regard to education, and we have had a number of conferences of a similar character. It is also the case, more perhaps now than at any time in the past, that in connection with inter-Imperial business Ministers of the Crown from different parts of the Empire do visit each other. I had the privilege of presiding at a gathering this afternoon at which two Ministers of the Canadian Government were present, and in a few weeks' time another Minister of the Canadian Government will be here, while an important Minister of the Government of Australia is in this country at this moment. It is no secret, of course, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to renew the personal contact established at the time of the Imperial Conference with the Government of Canada—to renew it on the spot in Canada during the next two months.
Of, course, if it is right and proper, as I think it is, that all travelling in this business should not be done only by Dominion Ministers but also by Ministers of the British Government, then naturally there is no member of the Government who ought to make more effort to visit the Dominions themselves than the Minister who holds the portfolio of Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. I hope to take advantage of the next few months in order to renew the contact with the various Dominions established at the late Imperial Conference, and to deal with one or other of the many current problems that are always being discussed between our Government and the Governments of the Dominions—
discussed often at such length and so inconclusively on paper, and so easily and speedily settled across the table. Beyond that, the machinery of consultation is being quietly and steadily improved. One of the outcomes of the late Conference was the conclusion that it was not enough to rely, in the intervals of conference, as between the Governments of the Empire, upon purely written or telegraphic communication, that if it was found necessary in international relations to deal with each other, from Government to Government, through personal intermediaries, then certainly as between the Governments of the Empire it was desirable that the method of direct written or telegraphic communication should be supplemented by personal intermediaries.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty referred to the lead given by Australia in the establishment of a liaison officer in this country, and the desirability of the High Commissioners being empowered to deal with the British Government not only on economic matters and the kind of subjects with which they have dealt in the past but also with matters of high inter-Imperial importance. That was accepted as a desirable thing at the Imperial Conference and steady progress is taking place in that direction. The machinery on this side is gradually improving. Naturally each Government must be the judge of the extent to which, and the occasions on which, it would ask its High Commissioner to raise questions of inter-Imperial importance with the British Government, but as far as the British Government is concerned, whether in foreign policy or in defence or in any other matter affecting the general policy of the Empire or the relations between ourselves and any Dominion, we are only too ready to consult with the representative of the Dominion here in the fullest and freest manner and to withhold no kind of information from him.
The Imperial Conference suggested that it might also be desirable to have some similiar liaison or representation of the views of the British Government at the other end. In foreign relations you always have an alternative channel of communication. For one reason or
another, sometimes personal, sometimes the character of the communication, it is sometimes easier to convey a matter by way of mouth at this end, sometimes easier to telegraph or write to your agent at the other end in order that the conversation may take place there. That is a matter which we are exploring, a matter in which we have to deal with different conditions in every Dominion, but in which, no doubt, we shall gradually establish as effective a system of contact as the conditions in each Dominion and of the work we have to do will warrant. The right hon. Gentleman suggested, in addition, that it might also be a useful thing to establish something in the nature of a permanent secretariat of the Imperial Conference. To some extent, of course, such a secretariat already exists in the Dominions Office, and if any general wish were expressed to create such a secretariat there would be no difficulty in giving effect to it.
As a matter of fact, however, our discussions recently have not run exactly on those lines. Instead of creating something in the nature of a general secretariat for Imperial purposes, the Governments of the Empire have been more concerned with setting up a variety of special advisory bodies, each dealing with one or other of the various subjects that come up at Imperial Conferences. Apart from the purely technical bureaux such as those dealing with mineral resources, mycology, entomology, and such like scientific subjects, we have seen in recent years the establishment of bodies like the Imperial Shipping Committee, set up under the authority of all the Governments of the Empire, and equally advisory to all of them, and the Imperial Economic Committee, set up in a similar constitutional position and, of course, closely connected with the Imperial Economic Committee, and provided with funds to enable it to give direct effect to many suggestions of the Committee, is the Empire Marketing Board. We are, therefore, steadily improving the machinery of regular consultation, and of course, the method of direct communication and consultation is improving all the time. There is no comparison between the kind of information which was sent to the Dominions on foreign affairs and Imperial defence questions, even three or four years ago, and the
immense volume of information now sent by mail and almost daily by telegrams, in order to keep them in day by day touch with the progress of all the affairs that can possibly concern them or affect the welfare of the Empire as a whole.
So much for the machinery of consultation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty also raised another matter in which his views were supported by the hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), namely, the question of whether continuity and unity of policy, regardless of changes in this House, might not be assisted if the Imperial Conference included members of the Opposition as well as of the Government of the day. I admit that, at first sight, is an attractive as well as an interesting suggestion. After the experience of 1924, when the party which now sits on the benches opposite, found itself obliged, as a Government, for one reason or another to go back on some of the decisions arrived at by the Imperial Conferences of previous years, it did so with genuine concern, and it put forward to the Dominions the suggestion of associating the Opposition with the Government in Imperial Conferences as a possible way of meeting that difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman knows that suggestion did not commend itself to the Dominion Governments. No Government expressed approval of it, and several Governments expressed strong disapproval. Mr. Bruce took the view that such a change would tend to hamper the frank exchange of views and might easily lead to serious consequences on the return of the delegation, when each of the representatives of a Dominion might feel compelled to relate his own version of what happened at the Conference with the result that the Conference might possibly stimulate party differences rather than compose them. The Prime Minister of Canada also suggested, from his point of view, that such a change would alter the essential character of the Imperial Conference. As he said:
The Conference is a Conference of Governments, and in no sense an Imperial Council, determining the policy of the Empire as a whole … Each Government must accept responsibility for its actions, and the Opposition must be free to criticise, with Parliaments and, if occasion arises, peoples, to decide the issues.
I believe that that is a valid objection. The essence of the Imperial Conference
system is undoubtedly that its discussions are those of responsible Governments and of Governments which, while they meet with all the frankness, with all the intimacy, and with all the sense of collegiate feeling that you get in a Cabinet, yet remember all the time that each Government has its own individual and undistributed responsibility, a responsibility for which it has to answer in its own Parliament, where alone final decisions can be reached, and where alone action can be initiated or confirmed. On the other hand, the position of an Opposition is necessarily and rightly one of freedom to criticise, and I believe that the position of a Leader of Opposition invited to an Imperial Conference, where he would be obviously obliged to conform during the discussions to the views of the Leader of the Government or else run the risk of really taking part in a conflict with other Governments against his own Government, would be one of genuine embarrassment.
I quite agree with my right hon. Friend opposite that there may be great and important issues when these objections do not weigh in the scales against the advantage of getting general consent. On the eve of the gravely critical situation preceding the War, as he has reminded the Committee, the Government of the day on several occasions invited Lord Balfour to join with them in the discussions of the Committee of Imperial Defence. From that point of view, one might say that something very similar took place during the discussions of the Imperial Conference and the Cabinet in 1917 and 1918, when the British representatives included not only a Liberal Prime Minister, but Mr. Bonar Law and the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson), and that Mr. Borden and Mr. Lowell, Mr. Hughes and Sir Joseph Cook, Mr. Massey and Sir Joseph Ward came together, each to represent the united or practically united view of their countrymen. I think that in cases of great emergency it is always possible to do so, and it is also possible to do that when you are dealing with what I might call some of the subsidiary and special organisations dependent on and connected with the Conference. The Committee of Imperial Defence has been quoted as one, and I might point out that on the Overseas Settlement Committee and on the Empire Marketing
Board we have endeavoured to enlist the valuable help of members of other parties.
I think the solution of the difficulty must lie, in Imperial affairs as in foreign affairs, in the cultivation in all parties of a sense of Imperial responsibility and a desire not to overthrow any decision arrived at, unless it really forces a vital issue of political importance at home, and conversely, also, the Government ought not unnecessarily to raise in the Conference an issue which will provoke and is bound to provoke party controversy. On questions of foreign policy there are often helpful informal discussions between the Government and the leaders of the Opposition. Those can take place on Imperial issues too; and over and above this, as more than one hon. Member has reminded us, there is yet another method, informal, no doubt, but most valuable, by which Members of Parliament, members of the Government and of the Opposition, can get into touch in a form of Imperial conference which is none the less fruitful because it depends not upon Governments but directly upon Parliaments, or upon those Members of Parliament who have organised themselves into branches of the Empire Parliamentary Association. Those meetings cannot be too frequent or too fully attended. The more frequently they meet, the greater their value, both in preparing the opinion of Governments and of Parliaments for the issues which will be discussed at the next Imperial Conference, and in helping Governments and Parliaments to give weight and effect to the conclusions arrived at in a preceding Conference. I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman and others have said in that connection.
If I may, I will turn now from these questions of machinery to the issues arising from the conclusions of the Conference which, while they have given, in the main, general satisfaction to almost every section throughout the country, have also undoubtedly raised a certain disquietude in the minds of some observers, including as close constitutional students as my hon. Friend the Member for York. My hon. Friend put in several ways what was substantially the same general question. He asked, Has there been, as the outcome of this
Conference, a change in constitutional relations, and what authority has Parliament given for such a change? The answer I would give is that undoubtedly there has been a great change, one of the profoundest and most remarkable changes in the relationship of communities and human beings that ever have taken place; but it is a change which has taken place, step by step, over the 80 years or more which have passed since Lord Durham's memorable Report on self-government was presented to this House. It was a step which has sometimes been assisted by legislation in this House, but far more often the advance has taken place without legislation and without direct constitutional discussion. The advance has taken place with the gradual growth of the Dominions.
Every Imperial Conference in the last 40 years has marked an advance, and the most remarkable advance of all was registered in the years following the War. The Imperial Conferences and Cabinets of 1917 and 1918 embodied the new position, which was recognised internationally as well as inter-Imperially, at the Peace Conference and in the League of Nations since then. In respect to that great change, the last Conference has not introduced any substantial new departure. What it has done is to clarify, and, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland suggested, to make visible what was inherent and there already, what to some of us had seemed obvious many years before and what to others, looking at the question from some different angle, perhaps, and not realising nearly so well as some of us the process that was going on, might have seemed a greater transformation than it actually was. What the Conference did was to lay down two main principles, not new to us, but accepted by all of us—the principle of absolute equality between the self-governing Dominions of the Empire and the principle of unity under a common Crown. My right hon. Friend has already read out the brief definition in which those two principles were embodied. There is really nothing new in it. Equality of status has been emphasised in speeches in Parliament and by the actions of the British Government for a generation, but certainly that equality and the unity that comes from it had never before been so authoritatively and
so clearly laid laid down as it was in the Imperial Conference of 1926 by the authority of all the Governments represented at that Conference.
In that sense undoubtedly, the Imperial Conference of last year marked a great turning point in the development of the British Empire. It acknowledged the coming of age of the Dominions, the completion of a process of history which I believe will be regarded by future generations as the most remarkable event of the last 50 years. That process was hardly noticed, because it was taking place unobtrusively, and the development of the great Commonwealth of co-equal nations did not attract very much attention. The coming into existence of other nations had attracted the attention of the world, because it had taken place by violence and strife, whereas the full growth of the nations forming the British Commonwealth has taken place by peaceful development and in full agreement with all the nations of the Commonwealth. That equality of status, as my hon. Friend has reminded us, is laid down in the conclusions of the Imperial Conference, but it does not necessarily involve equality of stature. Some of the Dominions are greater in territory and potential resources than Great Britain itself. Some may have far greater accumulated wealth and experience and organisation for dealing with international politics than others. The Government of this country has immense experience, immense apparatus for dealing with the external questions affecting the Commonwealth as a whole. The Dominions regard this machinery, not as an emblem of their subordination to a central authority, but as machinery which is more convenient for them to use, which serves them more efficiently, and which takes care that their interests are fully regarded in every way. The principle of equality is not in the least infringed, because one Government rather than another deals with questions affecting all. What is meant by equality of status is that as far as the question of rights is concerned, every Government of the Empire is, if it so wish, entitled to exercise every function of national and international life. From the declaration of these rights, it does not follow that every individual interest of any particular Government or the common interests of the
Empire would be served by always pressing the point of rights to its logical conclusion.
My hon. Friend raised certain particular questions which I should like to answer briefly. He raised, first of all, the question of the change in the title of His Majesty, and, in doing so, I think he was under a misapprehension as to the use of the term in the Royal title. "Dominions across the Sea" has, of course, no reference to Dominions in a constitutional sense. It refers to all the territories that are part of the British Empire, and as the words "across the seas" have always been understood to means the broad oceans, and certainly not to include either the Irish Channel or the border that separates the Irish Free State from Northern Ireland, it is obvious that it would be inappropriate to describe Ireland as a part of the Dominions beyond the Seas, nor would it have been compatible or consonant with our desire, which was to modify the Royal title the least possible, consistent with such rectification as recent changes in Ireland justify.
As regards the position of the Governor-General, my hon. Friend opposite asked whether His Majesty s Government had notified to the Dominions their acceptance of any change in the status of the Governor-General. No, the change in the status of the Governor-General from an agent and instrument of the British Government to the representative of the Crown in a Dominion, and nothing else, was a change which, like the whole of the changes in our constitutional evolution, has taken place gradually over a long period of years, and was in substance consummated many years before the late Conference took place. All that the late Conference did was to suggest that the purely historic survival by which communications from the British Government to its partner Governments went via the Governor-General's office—as it had done in the old days when the Governor-General was, as the Governor of a Crown Colony still is, the agent and instrument of the British Government—should be eliminated and the position brought up-to-date with present-day facts. Personally, as a Member of the party on these benches, I like historical survivals, and would have had no objection to maintaining
all these reminders of the older days out of which the Empire has evolved, but, undoubtedly, some of those survivals have given rise to misunderstandings in the past An hon. Member opposite suggests that in our physical bodies there are survivals which sometimes cause unexpected and acute pain, and danger, and it may be that on the part of one or another such a survival being maintained might lead to political difficulty. In so far as that was felt by some of the Governments concerned, we were perfectly willing to adjust the situation to the facts of the present day.
Exactly the same applies with regard to such survivals as the general powers of disallowance in Dominion legislation. Where, in regard to particular Measures, from the point of view of the Empire, it is highly desirable that unity should be maintained in practice, we wish to find out, by a special committee and by special sub-conferences, how that unity can best be maintained, consistently, as far as possible, with the present general constitutional position in the Empire. My hon. Friend asked whether that Committee and that Conference had yet met. No, Sir. The matters, as he himself pointed out, are very complicated, and involve many issues of detail, and we are at this moment still collecting all the necessary material for transmission to the Dominion Governments before we can really begin to deal with these matters. My hon. Friend asked whether or not it was competent for this Parliament to amend the Merchant Shipping Act. Undoubtedly, as a matter of law, this Parliament could amend the Merchant Shipping Act for the whole Empire in any way that it wished, but, as a matter of constitutional practice, it has not done so, and would not have done so for many long years. What we must endeavour to do is to find how by agreement, an essential unity, in matters of shipping can be preserved in consonance with the wishes of each Government in the Empire.
On these points I need not dwell further. All I would say in conclusion is that, while possibly irritating survivals have disappeared, the essential unity of the Empire has never been more strongly emphasised than it was at the late Conference, or felt to have been more strengthened
as it was by men of very different views who assembled at that Conference. That measure of unity is embodied in the symbol of a common Crown, a Crown common to the whole Empire, one and indivisible, constituting us all one common body of British subjects, embracing Governments unfettered and free in their action, all morally bound by the fact that they are Governments of the same Crown, responsible to Legislatures in which the same Crown is a constituent element, responsible to electorates composed of subjects of the Crown, and, as such, loyal to the Crown and to each other. We have, I believe, laid the foundation, by clearing away misunderstanding, for the work of practical and constructive development. An immense amount undoubtedly remains to be done. Unless we do carry out the great work of Empire construction and development in the coming years, this last Conference may well have been the beginning of the end. If there be no wish for unity, there is nothing to-day to preserve it. But I believe that the wish for unity exists, and that we have laid true foundations on which that unity can be built; and it is for this House and for those other partner Parliaments in the Empire to see that we build up a fair super-structure on the sound foundation we have laid at the Conference.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be Reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [24th June], "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Mon sell.]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'clock.